People do stuff that makes them feel better – get a water butt, re-use carrier bags but mostly gloss that fails to address what really counts – our behaviour as consumers of energy and materials. In my experience feel good factor outweighs financial factors (except possibly with vehicle fuel). I think this is evidenced that people are moaning like **** about energy price rises but not really looking at how to reduce usage. I’m an environmenal professional and fall squarely into this bracket. Still, I bank with the co-op so all’s good there…..d’oh!

I suppose for most people, the motivation to do anything comes through the potential for material or egotistical gain. I don’t cycle because it’s ‘better for the planet’, I cycle because it’s fun, and I enjoy it, as well as it often being the quickest (and cheapest) option.

Selfishness and greed are based on insecurity; the more secure and confident you are within yourself, the less you ‘need’ to reassure yourself that everything’s ok. ‘Comfort eating’, ‘retail therapy’, ‘rewards’, etc. Just terms used to cover up what is essentially insecurity-driven greed. So if we can address this insecurity within ourselves, maybe we can become less self-centred and selfish.

‘Be the change you want to see’ It’s very clichéd and a bit cringemaking, but if you can appear to others as confident and secure, and not needing much material affirmation, maybe you can help influence them into making less selfish decisions. Mind you, some people are just bloody lazy; a friend of mine drives everywhere, yet always comments on how fit I am, and goes on about his aches and pains etc, and that he really should exercise more. You can lead a horse to water…

Does he ever think about anyone apart from himself?

Problem number one in modern society.

The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity.

Crock d’merde, judging by the past few summers and winters.

I’ve always tried to do things with an environmental slant, but I have to admit that the stories coming out of the Pacific region about the state of the seas scare the utter crap out of me. Among other things, it sounds like the Japanese disasters has really, really **** things up.

do you think this is common?

It’s common amongst people I know, but it’s not common out there in the real world – that wasn’t the question though – does no one do it, absolutely not, some people do.

I tried to think of a non biased thread title.

Sadly I can’t change it now. Perhaps just stating the question would be better?

It’s been a while [ahwiles?] since I thought about questionnaire design, sorry 🙂

I’ve spent years promoting sustainable transport trying to get people to choose environmentally (locally and globally)friendly and socially/health aware options, I’ve cajoled, persuaded, influenced and argued and come to the conclusion that the primary factors in peoples choices are inertia and cash. If something is cheap enough and they’ve alwaays done it, they will stil do it. Make it more difficult and more expensive and they’ll start to think about other options, make it really expensive and even more difficult and a few will change…

The only way to persuade people to change their behaviour is by sticks, carrots don’t seem to work in my experience. Which is a shame really, because the stick approach is basically really difficult to implement over a population.

There’s probably quite a bit of psycholgical element to it all too. The short term thinking, the limited spatial awareness people have and the complete lack of appreciation that their actions have on others!

the thread title is of course fine, no need to apologise – but it might not attract the kind of people who we’re all really interested in, which is those people who genuinely don’t care at all about pretty much anything.

In any case I hear a bit of global warming will be beneficial

WTF?

The UK’s CO2 emissions are less than 2% of the world total. A small reduction in the UK will make no difference to climate. In any case I hear a bit of global warming will be beneficial. So I would never factor CO2 into any choices I made.

Even if CO2 emissions were the only relevant factor – this is a pointless distinction to make.

In the context of our almost utterly globalised economy, the idea that any place exists on it’s own without interaction and responsibility in the wider world is nonsense.

Whilst the country might only emit 2% of the CO2 – as people, we are responsible for a whole lot more than that – when we buy stuff manufactured overseas, then the CO2 emissions are in those countries, but the stuff is sold to people here, same goes for food growing, and what about emissions not in any country (flying, on boats etc.) just because your beans are grown in Kenya and flown here, doesn’t mean that the CO2 emissions are somehow someone else’s responsibility, and it’s a lazy poorly thought through response to a perfectly reasonable question.

maybe richer biodiversity

Given that biodiversity loss is a specific environmental problem on it’s own, aside from the problem of climate change, any potential gains (and these are marginal at the outside) in biodiversity will be completely lost by the current rate of development.

I love that nobody ever dares to mention trying to slow population growth as a means to reduce our long term impact on the enviroment. Arguably a malaria vaccine could be considered more damaging to the environment gram for gram than pretty much anything else we produce.

If I have a couple of kids it will be pretty late and I reckon I’ll die pretty early so I’m definitely doing my part.

The UK’s CO2 emissions are less than 2% of the world total

Produced by less than 1% of the total global population.

I try to do my bit, thinking if we all do a bit, something tangible might result – however I see so much apathy and self centred thinking, I’m coming to the conclusion it’s a waste of time. Asparagus in November from Peru is what I found in the fridge last nnight – that’s got to have used my carbon savings for the year up in one go!

One of my biggest issues is recycling. .to most folk its seen as an easy eco win and good for the planet. For those of us who know the industry it has massive downfalls and is often subjext to greenwash of epic proportions. In many instances efw is far more beneficial than recycling but power generation is perceived as bad. There are serious issues with energy input into green waste compsting, in vessel systems, mbt/ad plantsetc…also if you look at the full lca of recyling plastics for instance, where there are massive transpot and shipping impacts on the environment again it is nowhere near as green as believed.

Arguably a malaria vaccine could be considered more damaging to the environment gram for gram than pretty much anything else we produce.

Population is a concern, but it’s not the only concern, and it’s absurd to see it as a concern in isolation.

The people who benefit most from malaria vaccinations tend to be people who have an impact on the planet many orders smaller in size than those of us who will never need it – so stopping people dieing in the third world isn’t a massive issue environmentally – people in the west having 1 kid which consumes a lot will have an impact much greater than someone in Mali with 6 kids. The problem isn’t just the people existing (although I think that there is such a thing as a planetary carrying capacity – finite world, finite resources would suggest there are absolute limits to how many people, and depending on who you believe, there is a range of opinions on what that might be) the problem is what people actually do, and how they live their lives.

He also said he just doesn’t care about this issue at all.

Thoughts? Not sure what your course is but perhaps your colleague is on the wrong one if this is his viewpoint.

As for me, I try and do my bit partly because I feel duty bound, partly because I want to try and make a different and partly because I cannot abide those who wont even try.

In addition, working a profession (Facilities Management) where I manage buildings we have a social and moral responsibility. Plus the implications for energy/waste/transport etc reduction can have a big impact on costs, so not only are we making improvments but we’re also saving money.

people in the west having 1 kid which consumes a lot will have an impact much greater than someone in Mali with 6 kids

The problems really start when those six kids, and those from all types of countries and cultures get swept along in the relentless surge of globalisation and have the same sort of expectations and life expectancies as we’re used to.

Unfortunatelly less-developed countries will bear the brunt of the impact of overpopulation, cutting their birth rates will help us all, and it needs to be done soon.

cutting their birth rates will help us all, and it needs to be done soon.

Until they get to a point where their impact is anything like comparable to our own, then no it won’t – you would be better off attempting to cut birth rates in the west first -because it is the west which has the most impact on the environment.

It is a good idea to educate women, provide contraception and sex education, increase employment, decrease poverty and improve the provision of pensions (all of which have the effect of decreasing birth rates) but these things are also good things to do in general, rather than something we should do so that rich white people can maintain their standard of living by changing the way poor black people behave.

No-one will make any changes to their lifestyle choices to preserve the environment etc unless it’s for their monetary gain

I think that as a country our best bet is to legislate to control local environmental impacts (the asbestos / rubbish dump / poisoned river / car efficiency / new build house efficiency style things) whilst not incurring extra costs related to carbon emissions and global climate change (for example by getting caught up in Kyoto 2 or any further carbon trading schemes).

Other countries with higher emissions than ours have far more incentive to bring global warming under control. If they don’t work to do so then whatever we do will be meaningless. If they do work to control emissions then our holding off will be pretty much immaterial – except in as much as we avoid incurring the costs they will be laying on themselves, helping the UK maintain or increase its competitive advantage against these other countries.

On a personal level, I’m not sure anything I do really has that much impact… as per folk above, recycling, volunteer time with local wildlife charities, non-sweatshop clothes, being efficient with power at home, what of it? I’m living a first world life, and even if it’s a relatively efficient first world life, in global terms I’m (we’re) still definitely part of the problem.

FFS CHina India etc only emit loads of carbon cos they’re so busy manufacturing 5h17e to fill our landfills with. we only burn a small proportion of fossil fuels in this country,true, but the minerals, energy, water, natural capital consumed in manufacturing the crap we all consider indispensible (until we chuck it out) is where the real damage is, we’ve (UK, US, Europe)just exported the impact.

It’s not about what you do it’s what you buy

This where, as a designer, I come in….

CHina India etc only emit loads of carbon cos they’re so busy manufacturing 5h17e to fill our landfills with.

For sure, and some will be where they’re manufacturing quality goods but with no regard for the environment as they do so – however efficient a Chinese factory is, if it’s drawing power from the local grid its likely to be hooked up to something monstrous at the other end.

However, a growing amount is the result of their increasing middle-classedness, cars, dishwashers, lights, the whole shebang that we call living. They want it too, and are staring to get it.

So where do we go then? As regards our outsourced polltion, am I too far off base to see it as follows?: If the manufacturing countries (China and India, say) made moves to increase efficiency and reduce pollution then their costs will rise and they will lose market share – with some of it returning to the global North – good for us. With large young populations they just can’t afford this.

In which case the onus is on us (Northern countries and individual consumers) to restrict our consumption of stuff. The easiest way to bring this about would be to tax imports, but any tax based on carbon produced during manufacture and shipping (or total pollution inherent in the good) would likely start a trade war, increasing costs for the UK at the same time as further alienating other major global powers – it seems lose lose.

As for China and India’s own ‘personal’ pollution, I don’t know – Chinese politicians have incredible power to bring about rapid countrywide change, but also have to keep the population onside. It’s a big ask.

In passing, can i point out that using half a dishwasher tablet often works fine and reduces effluent run-off.

In passing, can i point out that using half a dishwasher tablet often works fine and reduces effluent run-off.

…or don’t use a dishwasher?

Or you could just think – i’ll stop buying all this crap and start sawing my dishwasher tablets in half – is that you’re designing GFS – a tablet halferiser.

Ok, I’ll bite.

I can honestly say that I generally don’t give a f*ck. Not in a ‘I can’t be arsed thinking about it & I’d rather have more parking way’, more in a ‘we’re doomed anyway way’ 🙂 The whole global economic model is wrong, and I just feel it’s all a bit pointless. Growth, growth, endless economic growth on a small finite planet. Everyone wants more, more kids, more houses, cars, holidays, stuff. Now the people who’ve got it are wanting to pull the ladder up and tell the developing world that they can’t have it. It’s madness.

On a more local level, take this country for example: Small, entirely owned by a few wealthy landowners. You’re effectively trespassing as soon as you’re born. There’s no space, houses are unaffordable to the average person. Why should they care if the Duke Of Westminster’s lake becomes polluted, or a Royal park gets paved for a road.

Sorry for the incoherent rant.

Talking about reducing waste, why do bicycles need two wheels. Buy a unicycle people.

No I’m designing a frikkin laser cleaner. Dishwashers are more water efficient anyway – Research!

Missed the boat there fella, halferisers are where its at

Please can you share your specification for a

frikkin laser cleaner

. 😆

The visual break requires Grade IV goggles….

It is a good idea to educate women, provide contraception and sex education, increase employment, decrease poverty and improve the provision of pensions (all of which have the effect of decreasing birth rates) but these things are also good things to do in general, rather than something we should do so that rich white people can maintain their standard of living by changing the way poor black people behave.

I also think you should have to have a license before having a baby in this country too, if that helps.

I sympathise, Jam, we face a great deal of problems, nasty housing is one of them. Thank heavens we don’t live in a slum, is all I’ll say. Still, I do what I can.

Interesting one, that. If we reduce our population dramatically and suddenly we may find there’s no one left to pay the bills (see Japan).

I also think you should have to have a license before having a baby in this country too, if that helps.

How would you police such a thing?

James Whale called, he wants his show back 😆

Basically, any type of average joe individual making any changes is going to make sod all difference to the environment at large.

The only way to end the raping of our planet and the environment is to end capitalism/monetarism/private property – whatever you want to call the insane system we have now. That is the only way. How many generations that might take before it’s too late and we reach oblivion is the question.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KphWsnhZ4Ag[/video]