I’ll never understand how there can be 73000 posts on the EU thread and yet barely a whisper about this. When the Amazon is gone and the Arctic ice is no more I doubt we’ll care much about free trade policy.

There have been plenty of threads. Sorry if they passed you by. Brazil one was very recent. Nearly every car/driving thread turn into a climate change one.

As you mentioned the EU thread, I’m pretty sure that shifting our trade strategy away from nearby countries, and towards far far away countries isn’t part of the answer.

I’m pretty sure that shifting our trade strategy away from nearby countries, and towards far far away countries isn’t part of the answer.

Totally agree, hence why I’m pro-remain. Lets not get into that though here. 🙂

On the subject of trade strategies though, even trading with close neighbours in the EU is damaging if we could be making stuff here. International supply chains are stupid, not to mention the assumption that international trade, whether in the EU or elsewhere is an inherently good thing. Needless consumption drives carbon emissions and other environmental damage. Should we not be trading less than we are now?

Why should we be trading less?

What makes more of an environmental impact, manufacturing closer to consumers or closer to the raw materials? International supply chains are perfectly logical when you consider the earths resources aren’t evenly distributed and even if they were not every country has the technological expertise, means or will to exploit them.

And as said, every other thread is a climate change thread, usually descending into “I can get by on a car club and cycle everywhere so why can’t everyone in the world”. The EU* thread just somehow managed to concentrate all that in one place.

Why should we be trading less?

You don’t think we need to consume less to solve climate change and the sustainability problem?

We should, but it should be targeted against certain kinds of consumption because the only way humans will ever truly be green – is with the right market forces driving innovation in green technology. If we go backwards and al become wood burning organic food eating hippies the world will be trashed.

Interesting debate re trading and climate change. Some argue economic activity/growth has to remain at a certain level in order to create the investment to then go into things like renewables, e.g. a lot of this investment disappeared after the financial crisis, especially the government subsidies which were dependent on tax revenue. Also in terms of product development, to make new products like e-bikes go mainstream you tend to need a fairly affluent market to buy the products and enable the R and D revenue to then lower the costs over time and go mainstream.
The trade is bad argument also can be used in a perverse way for keeping poor countries poor as they tend to consume less.
I think however there has to be a fundamental paradigm shift away from materialism over the long term, a less is more culture/simple life culture, but depressingly I see no signs of this happening – if it is to be adopted, I fear it will be under crisis conditions of ecological and/or economic collapse.

INSULATE !

You don’t think we need to consume less to solve climate change and the sustainability problem?

Did I say that? I thought my explaination was pretty clear.

There isn’t one cos us environmentalists can’t be arsed boring the shit out of everyone repeating the same dreary tropes ad nauseum as the tedious, know it all, needlessly argumentative, windbag shitehawks on the Brexit thread.

Perhaps someone else could contribute to this thread

Heating Engineers

I suggest a ground-source heat pump, solar thermal and insulation.

When the Amazon is gone and the Arctic ice is no more

Bit far away in those there foreeegn countries that brexiteers will never visit, so who really cares ?

Not them fo’sho.

I thought my explaination was pretty clear.

Is trade not directly proportional to consumption? The point around the efficient use of natural resources and where things should be manufactured is a valid one, but it doesn’t address the need to reduce demand. All our inernational political and economic structures, from the EU, to GATT, IMF, World Bank and pretty much every institution is based on perpetual economic growth and the free reign of markets. These are all in complete contradiction or denial to the actions required to reverse climate change and achieve resource sustainability.

Is trade not directly proportional to consumption?

Not necessarily. A closed but large economy could increase consumption without increasing trade. An open economy could be decreasing consumption by increasing specialisation, and trade, by manufacturing where it is most efficient to do so, while still minimising the distance to market. Compare trade between small nearby countries, eg. Norway/Sweden/Denmark, to increased consumption in the USA, for example.

All our inernational political and economic structures, from the EU, to GATT, IMF, World Bank and pretty much every institution is based on perpetual economic growth and the free reign of markets. These are all in complete contradiction or denial to the actions required to reverse climate change and achieve resource sustainability.

Not really – we do not live in a completely free market economic system. All you need to do is regulate in a way that helps the environment and capitalism will carry on constrained within that regulatory framework – it’s like Formula One – engineers still manage to make the cars faster despite conforming to new regulations each year.

The problem with taking a simple “cut” consumption route is that you will damage innovation, which is what is needed for a greener future and you will increase technological development time.

Everything is a balance, sound bites like “perpetual economic growth” don’t help, economic growth can continue by recycling resources, driving efficiency gains, regulating capitalism so that environmental impact has an economic cost etc etc etc.

The worlds population will plateau in 2050, once all nations have roughly equal purchasing power – consumption in the west will be reduced as it will have to be shared among the rest of the world, economic growth in what were once rapidly developing nations will taper off and growth will be slow to non-existent like in the west.

Everything is a balance, sound bites like “perpetual economic growth” don’t help,

There’s nothing balanced about a system based on GDP growth where even small short term reductions in that are deemed as destructive. It’s not a soundbite, it’s plain common sense that we can’t continue consuming natural resources and generating carbon emissions at the rate we do now. Even if it levels off at 2050 as you suggest it will be 25 years too late.

There’s nothing balanced about a system based on GDP growth where even small short term reductions in that are deemed as destructive. It’s not a soundbite, it’s plain common sense that we can’t continue consuming natural resources and generating carbon emissions at the rate we do now. Even if it levels off at 2050 as you suggest it will be 25 years too late.

Small short crashes happen in every type of complex system imaginable, they happen in the body, they happen in ecosystems, they even happened in Soviet Russia and China before it opened up to the world.

Stopping everything now – means people will carry on having a lot of children in certain parts of the world, it means people will still burn dirty fuels like wood, it means farming methods will stay the same or revert back to the pre-pesticide era causing increased amounts of land usage, it would probably lead to geopolitical instability and war and resultant environmental degradation.

We are beyond being able to stop our economic model without significant and completely unpredictable consequences that could be just as bad as the current cause of climate change, the best thing to do right now is limit damage to acceptable levels and find a way through it over the next two centuries using technology and regulation.

There’s nothing balanced about a system based on GDP growth…

You can increase GDP based on extraction of finite raw material and fuelled by fossil fuel.

You can also increase GDP by increasing productivity in the service sector, and by increasing reuse of materials fuelled by renewable energy.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/no-climate-change-will-not-end-the-world-in-12-years/

Scientists are already developing new ways to produce food in hotter, drier and wetter climates. The energy landscape has been rapidly transitioning and new technologies now allow us to be more efficient with water, waste less in agriculture and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Plant-based meat alternatives and cell-cultured meat are swiftly entering the global marketplace to have a less damaging environmental impact than their traditionally produced counterparts. We are preparing future generations for conditions on a changing planet, but the lack of public awareness, trust and support of the research involved will hinder our progress.

Doomsday scenarios may generate clicks and sell advertisements, but they always fail to convey that science is nuanced. Arbitrary “time left to apocalypse” predictions are not evidence based and the story of climate change doesn’t fit neatly into brief bullet points competing for your attention in today’s saturated media environment. Stoking panic and fear offers a false narrative that can overwhelm readers, leading to inaction and hopelessness.

Climate change cannot become yet another doomsday narrative. It’s far too important and deadly serious. Climate change deserves to be addressed with a level of gravity that spurs informed policies, thoughtful planning and dedicated leadership at the local, national and global scale. Journalists must figure out how to convey the precarious state of our world along with the opportunities still available to adapt and change our behavior to mitigate the worst possible outcomes.

Why aren’t the government already:-

Starting to further ramp up taxes on petrol and diesel to subsidise greener infrastructure?

Making it law that all new homes are well insulated and include solar panels?

Subsidising solar panel installation (like they did previously)?

Starting to ramp up taxes on beef, lamb and dairy to subsidise UK grown fruit and veg?

Planting lots more trees?

Introducing an air miles tax instead of building a third runway at Heathrow?

the best thing to do right now is limit damage to acceptable levels

What are acceptable levels? The IPCC have said this is 1.5c above pre-industrial levels, or in terms of emissions 450ppm of CO2. We’re almost at those now. We don’t have 200 years, we have less than 20. Massive and immediate action is required. The idea that it will unnecessarily damage the economy is straight from the mouth of Donald Trump and every climate change denier. Rayban, you’re clearly not stupid, so I find these comments quite astonishing.

You can also increase GDP by increasing productivity in the service sector, and by increasing reuse of materials fuelled by renewable energy.

And you can also increase carbon emissions by finding new and utterly pointless methods of using energy. I read somewhere that the energy produced by all the worlds solar panels is less than that used for bitcoin mining. Until we find ways of leaving fossil fuels in the ground and rationing energy use until the renewable energy infrastructure can meet demand nothing will change.

Bitcoin mining? Or people watching reruns of Friends using streaming services? Yeah, lots of things that you could argue are “pointless” require energy… the key thing is to change where we get that energy from. That doesn’t mean GDP growth can’t happen.

STOP FLYING !

The problem with tackling climate change is that it’s just so BIG.

On an individual level it’s in some respects overwhelming. I try and do little bits and bobs – cycle to work, don’t buy meat, I even planted about 30 tree saplings this year. Those actions are all just so tiny though, when there are billions of people out there all burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, and generally not giving a shit.

I did some sums a few weeks ago and worked out that even the relatively small yearly mileage I do driving would produce the same amount of carbon dioxide as three trees would absorb in 100 years. A HUNDRED YEARS! For one years worth of driving!? And that’s just the driving, not including all the other stuff required to keep me alive in the style I’m accustomed to.

The way I see it the best I can do at an individual level is be the change I want to see. I get all my food from a local CSA, cycle to work, buy second hand wherever that is an option and take the train instead of the car for long journeys wherever possible. In recent years my holidays have all been roadtrips – 2 people driving to Spain roughly halves the emissions compared to per seat emissions of a plane.

Then I try to talk about all these things in day to day conversation, hoping that this normalises it and makes friends and colleagues consider them as an option for themselves, without preaching that they MUST do this, that always ends badly…

Daz, above 1.5c is not a catastrophe – it’s not an existential threat until much larger temperature rises.

In the IPCCs own words

Examples of actions consistent with the 1.5 °C pathway include “shifting to low- or zero-emission power generation, such as renewables; changing food systems, such as diet changes away from land-intensive animal products; electrifying transport and developing ‘green infrastructure’, such as building green roofs, or improving energy efficiency by smart urban planning, which will change the layout of many cities.”[41] As another example, an increase of forestation by 10,000,000 square kilometres (3,900,000 sq mi) by 2050 relative to 2010 would be required.[42]

They aren’t talking about ending capitalism or growth – all of that can be done and is best done through regulated capitalism. Apart from reforestation, that needs to be government driven.

They are talking about geoengineering as well and a five fold increase in green technology research – you need a healthy economy to throw money at either of those.

If people actually listened to scientists and engineers – trusted them enough to make considered and balanced economic decisions and trusted the scientists to find find technological solutions we wouldn’t need highly ideological activists muddying the waters.

I get all my food from a local CSA,

rsl1 what is this please?

@Educator. If you keep pushing no flying you’ll undermine the business model of this website, especially if you include the worlds 2nd most destructive industry, fashion.
Our own hobby of bikes has become incredibly destructive with wasteful constant new standards and next big things.

I often notice the irony of the threads on here, its all just consumption of stuff. We moan and carry on as we were. Spain biking for the weekend?

Climate change is big but it needs us all (in the wealthy world) to do simple stuff as well as use our powers of consumption not to buy from those that don’t get it. Then lobby you’re politicians whatever their politics. If you have kids and grandkids it makes sense.

Just do as much as you can.

Or people watching reruns of Friends using streaming services?

I would have absolutely no problem with Friends being banned on netflix. It would prevent me having to watch it every bloody day when my teenage daughters have it on.

Serisously though, the problem with the expansion of renewable energy in all it’s forms is that it’s seen as a reason not to cut down on energy use, and isn’t doing much to reduce fossil fuel use. It’s pointless if it isn’t combined with a deliberate effort to leave fossil fuels in the ground.

On an individual level it’s in some respects overwhelming.

Of course it is. But the power of individual action is not in the carbon you might save by driving and flying less, but the political and economic messages it sends to those in power. Overt political action is even more effective. Instead of depriving yourself of a foreign holiday, it’s more useful to go on the climate strikes, lobby politicians or do whatever else you can at a political level. And on that note I’m off to join my kids in Manc for the climate strike.

Edukator
Correct.
I have an app called flightradar, whenever I’ve showed this to friends or family members, they are always absolutely staggered at the sheer amount of aircraft in the sky at any given time.
Cars also.
We need to stop rushing about this planet as though we own it.

Overt political action is even more effective. Instead of depriving yourself of a foreign holiday, it’s more useful to go on the climate strikes, lobby politicians or do whatever else you can at a political level. And on that note I’m off to join my kids in Manc for the climate strike.

What is effective is if people actually listened to scientists, engineers and experts. Not just the politicians but the public as well, because you can guarantee a lot of your political activists will resist many of the sensible ways we could mitigate this – eg food science, GMOs etc.

it’s not an existential threat until much larger temperature rises.

And those larger rises will occur due to feedbacks which are already accelerating. The destruction of the Amazon, disappearance of Arctic sea ice and melting of Permafrost are already happening. Those higher temperature rises may not be as far off as you think.

And those larger rises will occur due to feedbacks which are already accelerating. The destruction of the Amazon, disappearance of Arctic sea ice and melting of Permafrost are already happening. Those higher temperature rises may not be as far off as you think.

The IPC models take these into account. And no, the larger rises are not considered statistically the most likely eg rcp 8.5.

Explainer: The high-emissions ‘RCP8.5’ global warming scenario

Look, an iceberg!

Don’t worry, it’s a mile away.

How long does it take to change direction?

Probably a bit less than a mile, maybe, hopefully. Anyway, from here, from far away, it looks like it might only be a small iceberg. Maybe. Hopefully.

What is effective is if people actually listened to scientists, engineers and experts.

Don’t disagree. What do we do about the polticians and business leaders in fossil fuel industries who prefer not to do this?

Don’t disagree. What do we do about the polticians and business leaders in fossil fuel industries who prefer not to do this?

This is going to sound odd but stay with me…our problems are not because of greed. Scientists like money – it makes science happen. Business leaders and wealth managers – do in fact want sustainable growth.

Our problem stems from the fact that an evidence illiterate public vote for evidence illiterate politicians, of which both groups only show an interest in climate change when you frame it in ideological/emotional/nationalistic or racist terms – eg people like the Eco-Nationalist Roger Hallam and Ronan Harrington or colonialist dinosaurs like David Attenborough.

Stop voting for them. Join parties and push for evidence based policy making as opposed to knee jerk fundamentalism. Look at Germany, shut all its nuclear overnight and instead makes up for the shortfall by burning more coal (or continued nuclear imports from other countries). We went the other way and now have no coal and very little energy security thanks to decades of can kicking. Governments need to concern themselves with the long term wellbeing of the country rather than short term political gain.

Why aren’t the government already:-

Starting to further ramp up taxes on petrol and diesel to subsidise greener infrastructure?

Starting to ramp up taxes on beef, lamb and dairy to subsidise UK grown fruit and veg?

Introducing an air miles tax instead of building a third runway at Heathrow?

Because the majority would not vote for it. The fact it requires governments to do it unilaterally and the people to vote for it in the first place means it will never happen. The first action that will take place is when it is having a direct impact and that will be 40 years too late.

‘Meat’ free hydroponic food production anyone..?

“Soylent green is made from people…”

On a serious note, quite simply, there are already far too many humans on this planet, each of which on average, consumes too much resource.
Keep and repair, don’t throw away and buy new. Buy carefully, consume wisely, build for the long term, even if that is well beyond your own expected lifespan.
I plant trees, grow food and hope that some of these problems can be fixed before the next generation runs out of options.