• This topic has 226 replies, 72 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by pondo.
Viewing 40 posts - 161 through 200 (of 227 total)
  • Everywhere is burning or drowning…
  • kelvin
    Full Member

    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.

    olddog
    Full Member

    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.

    seosamh77
    Free Member

    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.

    piemonster
    Full Member

    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.

    kerley
    Free Member

    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.

    tomd
    Free 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
    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.

    sailor74
    Free Member

    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.

    rsl1
    Free Member

    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.

    Voting intention by age, 2019

    maxtorque
    Full Member

    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………..

    zilog6128
    Full Member

    It 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.

    interesting comparison… do you drink a lot 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-cuppa

    p7eaven
    Free Member

    @dyna-ti

    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:

    https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Land-use-Reducing-emissions-and-preparing-for-climate-change-CCC-2018.pdf

    and 2020:

    https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Land-use-Policies-for-a-Net-Zero-UK.pdf

    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)

    https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sustainable-Food-Cities-response-to-Call-for-Evidence-2018.pdf

    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.

    dyna-ti
    Full Member

    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.

    p7eaven
    Free Member

    ^ @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…

    myti
    Free Member

    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.

    seosamh77
    Free Member

    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
    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.

    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.

    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.

    greentricky
    Free Member
    jonba
    Free Member

    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.

    doris5000
    Free Member

    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?

    https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/102466/number-of-young-adults-with-driving-licences-falls-by-40-per-cent

    corroded
    Free Member

    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
    Full Member

    @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 :lol: 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 :wink:

    CountZero
    Full Member

    18 degrees is t-shirt weather

    20 degrees C is my ideal temperature, 18 I might think about putting a sweatshirt on if it’s a bit windy.

    Not buying a new TV every year

    WTF buys a new TV every year? 😳 Mine have averaged ten years before having to be replaced because they’ve actually broken beyond repair. My current Sony Bravia is 14 years old, and is only now starting to show real issues with the display that are probably irreparable. It cost me £899, and I’m not in the habit of replacing something that hasn’t broken for no reason. I’ve actually owned three TV sets since the 1980’s, a 21” Panasonic, a 32” Philips widescreen CRT, and my current Sony.
    I’m actually reluctant to replace the Sony because everything like it is a bloody ‘smart’ TV, which I don’t need, because I have everything I need via Sky+, and the smart stuff almost inevitably ceases to get upgraded after a short time, relative to the lifespan of the set.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Personal responsibility is important, but even if we want to do the right thing sometimes it’s really difficult. For example, when you lose your job and the only one that you can find that supports your family is 40 miles away and there’s no PT etc etc.

    The only people who can solve the issues are those in governments. The buck stops with them, and I think if we simply shout at each other we’re letting them off the hook.

    p7eaven
    Free Member

    @dyna-ti

    By hey, lets pretend you’re genuine

    Yeah you see, with that comment – ahm oot/disengaging with your comments. Lesson learned. Will have to agree to disagree on exactly what that lesson looks like.

    p7eaven
    Free Member

    @molgrips

    For example, when you lose your job and the only one that you can find that supports your family is 40 miles away and there’s no PT

    (Devil’s advocate) – in the olden times people would look at relocating to a job 40 miles away. I know if I took a job in the FoD (for instance, ie about 40 miles away) I couldn’t easily cycle there (prefer to cycle-commute) so that’s a no-go and rural PT is often patchy at best. So say there was no PT, then my options are to 1. petition the government to (do what?), 2. look for a car-share, 3. drive there myself or 4. Move. Surely the most responsible and practical thing to do would be for us to relocate near to the workplace/income-source rather than expecting the government to in some way facilitate/encourage/subsidise longer commutes?

    grum
    Free Member

    Most jobs now are nowhere near as secure/stable as in the past though, plus housing is expensive and can be hard to come by – making relocating much more risky/difficult.

    p7eaven
    Free Member

    ^ So if instability/insecurity is undesirable/unworkable then do we (cultural/practical/infra etc) aim towards 1. More stability/security/decreased commutes or 2. Towards enabling/encouraging increased instability/insecurity/normalising long commutes?*

    *Nation-wide sci-fi underground warp-speed citizen-capsule transit-tunnels temporarily excluded from practical argument.

    piemonster
    Full Member

    Somebody mentioned free public transport, that to me seems like a no brainer.

    Paid for by taxation, it’s paid for by the general public anyway, provider then paid by tickets dispensed. (I don’t know what I’m talking about, just seems a good idea).

    Klunk
    Free Member

    if you want some monday morning blues read the comments in the Daily Fail for that story.

    What do these so-called climate experts think is the ideal temperature the earth should be? They don’t have an answer for that question, so the temperature increase may actually be a good thing. Of course some parts of the world won’t like the change, but other parts will. Stop with all the hysteria about climate change, as it has been changing since the beginning of time. How about scolding the worst polluters instead of putting ridiculous restrictions on Western nations?

    Politicians love climate change agenda because they use it to increase green taxation on the masses. Scientists love it as they get funding for their prophecy of doom predictions. Middle classes love it because they have gone totally mad and believe the sanctimonious media lecturing them.

    First they said we were going into another ice age, then it became “acid rain” that would kill us all, then a huge hole in the ozone layer would burn us all to a crisp, then global warming, and finally the term that lets them use whatever data they like “climate change”. All of it being done to impact the lives of the peasants. Climate lockdowns will be next on the agenda

    Not a single prediction has as yet not come to fruition. Take the ” recent temperature changes “. These are measured using accurate devices yet historical data uses tree ring data – when the two were compared it was found that tree ring data bore no correlation to accurate measurements. Take away historical data and the science is a joke … The earths climate has always changed and will continue to do so – taxing us will not change the earths core rotation. It will not stop volcanic activity and will make little change overall. We need to be aware of the changes snd simply change how we work around the changes.. Canada have very accurate climate records – have a look and make your own determination of the evidence .

    ad infinitum…

    and then they follow up with the editorial….

    DOMINIC LAWSON: Why IS the BBC a pulpit for eco-fanatics and their doomsday climate cult?

    neilnevill
    Free Member

    Looks like it’s been very wet in Glasgow. Well, we’re having a sustained spell of exceptionally heavy rain over a wide area with flash flooding from London to Glasgow and that’s just the UK, concerning.

    v7fmp
    Free Member

    jeeeeez. That right there is some weapons grade bullsh1t from the Daily Mail. Shame on them!

    TheBrick
    Free Member

    Surely the most responsible and practical thing to do would be for us to relocate near to the workplace/income-source rather than expecting the government to in some way facilitate/encourage/subsidise longer commutes?

    Partners jobs, kids schools, parents. Add into that the uncertainty of moving to a new job, you may hate it, basing you’re entire life around a job is for many not how they wat to live and give immense power to an employer. Add cost of moving, fees, tax, moving costs. Also unless you want everyone to live in housing units, even getting a house that suites you is a challenge, this is not a housing market comment but the fact that people live in different house, they are not all the same.

    I know what you are saying about moving but the simple just move argument simplifies how difficult moving is for a large number of people. Even on the cost front, as a DIY person (I don’t mean putting up shelve I mean everything I can) who hires vans etc for moving it still cost me thousands to move house.

    jonba
    Free Member

    Pretty much the above. With both parents working and kids in schools moving to be nearer a job will likely just change the problem rather than solve it. Along with the associated costs most people will just buy a second car and drive.

    then it became “acid rain” that would kill us all,

    Which lead to us reducing the amount of coal being burnt for power. Most power stations are now fitting flu gas desulfurization. Same is being done for ships burning heavy oils.

    then a huge hole in the ozone layer would burn us all to a crisp,

    Which lead to banning of numberous chemicals (CFCs) and strict control on the release of others to atmosphere (lots of VOC legislation if you work with solvents).

    then global warming, and finally the term that lets them use whatever data they like “climate change”.

    Which was largely done because some the planet getting 1C warmer doesn’t seem like a problem until you put it into context of sea level rises and more extreme weather which averages out.

    It all feels a bit like the millenium bug…

    p7eaven
    Free Member

    I know what you are saying about moving but the simple just move argument simplifies how difficult moving is for a large number of people. Even on the cost front, as a DIY person (I don’t mean putting up shelve I mean everything I can) who hires vans etc for moving it still cost me thousands to move house.

    I never said it was simple. We had to move three times in 5 months (flat-to-a house-to-a-flat-to-a-bigger-flat) and this after being in one place for 15 years it was a massive stress and I don’t think I’ve recovered in the 5 years since, tbh. The last move was the worst as I did it alone (funds were out we were borrowing hard by then) Having someone in the house with a disability you also have to consider ability-fixtures, aids, safety etc. But yet we’d still move* for a job rather than drive 80+ miles a day (the fuel alone would be something like £200 a month, even with our 54mpg car) when that wasteful fuel would instead put good food on the table and I could cycle or work to work living nearby. Car-commuting can also be extra-stressful on the self (the stresses on the environment/climate are a given)

    Isn’t the sensible thing to long-commute for a while (6 months or so) and then begin the moving process once ‘new job’ dust has settled and you can see which way the wind is blowing with the job? I realise that you can’t choose all of your circumstances but you can choose the way you approach change. But the bottom line is should we be encouraging a culture where long physical commutes and job instability are the norm?

    *just not 3x 🤢

    I read that BBC article first thing and it out me in a bad mood that I’m planning to turn around into something positive. The very sad thing is that the deniers don’t understand the graph or the observable effects, yet will still deny it. And most of those who are educated and/or wealthy but most importantly in a position to make changes will be crying themselves to sleep at the thought of making changes/arguing about what changes to make – or just thinking ‘well **** it we **** it so now I don’t give a ****’

    kenneththecurtain
    Free Member

    From the BBC article linked above:

    So what can be done?

    While this report is more clear and confident about the downsides to warming, the scientists are more hopeful that if we can cut global emissions in half by 2030 and reach net zero by the middle of this century, we can halt and possibly reverse the rise in temperatures.

    You know things are bad when the ‘hopeful’ part of that article is incredibly depressing. There’s literally no chance of either of those things happening.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    in the olden times people would look at relocating to a job 40 miles away.

    Yes, but that is really very difficult to do in many cases. It means uprooting your kids from their networks, and it might mean looking for a new job for your partner which might not be possible in the timeframe or might mean a signifiant compromise in terms of their career.

    In the old days if the man had to move the woman either wasn’t working or was just doing a non-professional job which could easily be relocated; and your kids were just expected to take it on the chin. Now though many households depend on professional jobs from two adults, and this is needed for many households because house prices have adjusted to reflect that level of income. Which locks people in. Now none of this is insurmountable, but dealing with that is a hell of a lot harder than simply getting in your car and driving a bit further.

    Modern live is quite complex and there are many many pressures on people (and dismissing them doesn’t help). That’s why it needs government action. For example, if WFH was strongly incentivised or even mandated in some capacity (where possible obviously) this would dramatically ease a lot of these problems.

    p7eaven
    Free Member

    For example, if WFH was strongly incentivised or even mandated in some capacity (where possible obviously) this would dramatically ease a lot of these problems.

    +1

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    Like a lot of issues, proper provision of affordable social housing would remove several of the pressures limiting peopmes ability to move – those who need it could get it, it would reduce pressure on privately owned housing stock (and potentially reduce cost/slow price rises) etc.

    We’ve relocated twice around the country for work – luckily MrsMC has job where vacancies exist nationwide, but would be reluctant to do it where it will impact kids exams

    jambourgie
    Free Member

    In this country at least (I don’t know the situation in other countries), I think things would improve if the housing problem/shortage was sorted out. If everyone is priced out of buying a home or getting absolutely fleeced in rent on an insecure tenancy where they can’t put down roots then it’s hardly surprising that a lot of people are not invested or concerned about the environment. Another reason to get a massive social housing building program underway.

    tomd
    Free Member

    Modern live is quite complex and there are many many pressures on people (and dismissing them doesn’t help). That’s why it needs government action. For example, if WFH was strongly incentivised or even mandated in some capacity (where possible obviously) this would dramatically ease a lot of these problems.

    Yep good point, it would be very useful and help people manage their careers and realities of modern life.

    There’s also the cash barrier to moving – to sell up and move an average house you’re looking at the thick end of £10k, before you consider any necessary repairs / adjustments to the new house. The government could also encourage relocation by provide tax breaks or other incentives as a lot of people simply can’t afford to move.

Viewing 40 posts - 161 through 200 (of 227 total)

The topic ‘Everywhere is burning or drowning…’ is closed to new replies.