You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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.
https://twitter.com/meteogr/status/1423771527577800717
Everything's fine...
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 😉
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
^ 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.
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).
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?
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.
jeeeeez. That right there is some weapons grade bullsh1t from the Daily Mail. Shame on them!
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.
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...
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 ****ed it so now I don't give a ****’
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Yet no matter how hard I look I can’t see anyone (there’s probably a few MGTOW doom-preppers pretending via social media that they exist on pure-grass-fed-pemmican whilst living in a cave in the remote North) making the argument for zero imports?
Food security is a growing issue though, and it’s increasingly complex since leaving the EU.
Climate change will affect the UK through extreme weather, where warmer wetter winters are forecast alongside drier summers, potentially reducing yields. For more information, see the GFS report:
As of last August (2020) the UK was only 18% self-sufficient in fruit, 55% in fresh vegetables and 71% in potatoes.
So while the government are publicly ‘aiming’ to reduce reliance on meat and dairy how are they subsidising fruit and veg farmers by comparison?
Will this report be enough to persuade to government to take action? Or will we carry on as normal with gentle nudging?
Let's all down tools for a mass climate strike!
^ I think the thing is to look concerned on social media and carry on blaming the government and meanwhile Carry On As Normal. Maybe we could switch to semi-skimmed for a week, or car-share one time, just to see if it’s possible/see what those plant people are banging on about?
Or flat denial? Have a read of the preponderance/flavour of social media comments that we are seeing outside of this lefty liberal marxist virtue-signalling echo-chamber good parish:
As usual, the comments under the BBC article are rather depressing. It's not our fault! Blame China! Etc 🤦
Love the blame china for pollution.
One of the main reasons the uk has reduced CO2 emissions is that alot of manufacturing has been outsourced to china to make stuff for us so its really our pollution.
I wonder how this is going to affect Britain's imports and exports with us now ignoring the giant market on our doorstep in favour of sending and receiving mulitple diesel electric generated commercial ships crisscrossing the oceans for thousands of miles.
Maybe that's why we're getting rid of fossil fuel vehicles and gas central heating in an attempt to offset those increased carbon costs 😕
Meanwhile Russia, the United States,China and probably India it will be business as usual, especially the US. If they aren't willing to give up their guns despite a huge death toll because of them, I dont see them readily getting rid of their gas guzzling muscle cars in favour of small electric runarounds.
Government action...
I've just read a good fictional book called Ministry for the future. It's hard sci-fi. A really great author, and it looks at some of the upcoming global climate problems we're likely to face and sees an international body (the Ministry) taking the lead on tackling them. And trying to twist the arms of governments around the world. I'd write a proper review if I wasn't supposed to be in a meeting right now (ironically on the same subject!) but the Grauniad has made a half-hearted effort so read that instead:
Actually, it's worth reading just for the chapter where the entire Davos conference is held hostage 🙂
Meanwhile Russia, the United States,China and probably India it will be business as usual, especially the US. If they aren’t willing to give up their guns despite a huge death toll because of them, I dont see them readily getting rid of their gas guzzling muscle cars in favour of small electric runarounds.
Nobody is going to be giving up anything in any country to anyway close to the levels of change that are required. Unless things are changed globally then nothing is ever going to be done about climate change and we know the chances of anything constructive being done globally. Just take a few things that would actually make a difference and it is obvious these are not going to be stopped and very difficult to change;
- No use of gas or oil
- No more shipping around the world
- No more cruises/holidays abroad
- No more meat
Love the blame china for pollution.
One of the main reasons the uk has reduced CO2 emissions is that alot of manufacturing has been outsourced to china to make stuff for us so its really our pollution.
How do you see a way out of that conumdrum? Either we need all the crap we currently buy, in which case we need to ensure it's manufactured in as environmentally-friendly a way as possible (which would be easiest to achieve if we brought manufacturing back to the UK, and which in turn would probably need some regulations relaxed to make it even possible).
Or - we don't need that crap, in which case it's fine that we don't make any of it, and we really should be discouraging people from importing it by adding a CO2 tax or similar to imports.
You could say that right now, it's the worst of all worlds - we have destroyed our own ability to manufacture things, and instead buy everything from countries with practically no personal or environmental protections.
Governments and the population will fail to act in time or by enough.
We have passed 1.5, we will pass 2.
On the way to 3 degrees warmer, the refugee crisis and local environmental crisis will result in more and more drastic problems, but all too late to make a difference.
They will be so overwhelming that they will swamp any effort to do anything about the warming.
Wars over resources, boarder clashes over refugees, daft and untried environmental experiments to change the climate. Current governments overthrown by extremist version or just collapsing into chaos. Economies will go into freefall and lots of countries will just be failed states. Island nations (that aren't underwater) will just close their borders.
All of this is making me feel very guilty about having swapped my 4 mile cycle commute to my old job for driving anywhere up to an hour to new work.
No more meat
There’s an episode of Harry’s Farm that touches on this. I do think that there is potential for some meat production which is kinda not too bad, ethics aside.
Livestock farming is nothing new, it’s the scale of consumption that’s the (primary) problem where you intensify practices leading to large areas of arable land being used to feed livestock.
If your raising entirely grass fed stock then the impact is, allegedly, quite different. But the obvious knock on consequence is no cheap meat at the very least.
This is the episode, I don’t really know enough on the subject to really put numbers against anything or offer any critique as to how accurate a picture is being given.
Meat farming in say the US is not like farming here in the UK.
Out there they have thousands of cattle, no grass and no water. Its also like that in the Middle East. I've seen farms in Bahrain where they have tens of thousands of Sheep, all having to be fed and watered from imported food and desalinated water.
But they have to feed the population, so should they import it, thus causing carbon emissions due to shipping ? Seems every action in our current economy / way of life has a negative impact. We are not set up to change these things until its forced on us by the collapse of the economy / government.
You have to recognise its precisely the economy/government/way of life that has caused the problem, so I don't see the cause of the problem solving the problem.
Meat farming in say the US is not like farming here in the UK.
Well aware of that, I did hope I’d made the distinction that it’s only grass fed stock not intensive farming he’s talking about.
Governments and the population will fail to act in time or by enough.
We have passed 1.5, we will pass 2.On the way to 3 degrees warmer, the refugee crisis and local environmental crisis will result in more and more drastic problems, but all too late to make a difference.
They will be so overwhelming that they will swamp any effort to do anything about the warming.
Wars over resources, boarder clashes over refugees, daft and untried environmental experiments to change the climate. Current governments overthrown by extremist version or just collapsing into chaos. Economies will go into freefall and lots of countries will just be failed states. Island nations (that aren’t underwater) will just close their borders.
This.
At the moment, no Government wants to think too long term about this - some know it's going to be a problem but either they think "it won't be that bad" or they don't really want to address it because by then someone else will be in power. And some have buried their heads in the sand about it.
The other option, if you start saying all this, is total utter panic and chaos anyway. So right now we're at the greenwashing stage - tell the public to buy electric cars or take one less bath a week or turn the thermostat down a degree. None of which is going to make the blindest bit of difference globally.
if this is true - it is plausible IMO - then what is the point in any individual trying to do anything about it? About the only practical thing you can do is move to a house on a hill, at least you'll be less at risk from flooding (that said, some houses-on-a-hill locally [I]have[/I] been flooded a number of times lately, when the storm drains or whatever further up overflowed)Governments and the population will fail to act in time or by enough.
We have passed 1.5, we will pass 2.On the way to 3 degrees warmer, the refugee crisis and local environmental crisis will result in more and more drastic problems, but all too late to make a difference.
Some of us are still on that boat going down the river in Egypt.
Some have got off and are trying to make themselves feel better by buying an electric car or putting our amazon packaging in the correct bin.
Meanwhile, most of us in the UK are complaining that due to Covid we cant fly to Spain for our god given right to have a holiday abroad. In the US all the Republican senators are still on the boat in Egypt.
This story does not have a happy ending.
if this is true – it is plausible IMO – then what is the point in any individual trying to do anything about it?
If your house was on fire, would you want the fire brigade to at least attempt to put it out or would you rather they stood there saying "well, the kitchen is ****ed now so we should just let the whole place burn down".
Where that analogy ends though, is you can't build a new planet...
What can you do ? Depends on how old you are and where you are in life.
My recommendation is to enjoy what's left and don't have kids.
For those that want to do more than that, then you have to change the governments around the world, then the economies. Bit of an ask, so perhaps we do one step at a time. Vote Green here first ?
Problem is our governments have designed the system so we only have a choice of two. Changing that will take far too long. Try the economic approach, pressure business to do the right thing, use social media to shame them into doing the right thing.
Where that analogy ends though, is you can’t build a new planet
You tell Slartibartfast that.
That's probably the worst analogy for climate change I've come across yet 🤣 Yes, obviously, I'd want them to put the fire out... but if they refuse, I can't do it myself can I? Therefore there's no point me trying to save the planet, is what you're saying, as personally I can make no effective difference 🤔If your house was on fire, would you want the fire brigade to at least attempt to put it out or would you rather they stood there saying “well, the kitchen is **** now so we should just let the whole place burn down”.
I've voted Green for years, like you say though they don't stand a chance, save getting the odd councillor in here and there.Vote Green here first ?Problem is our governments have designed the system so we only have a choice of two.
Basically you need to take matters into your own hands. You wont change the government by voting, you wont stop Amazon destroying the Amazon by not buying from them.
So, do something direct like some of those climate action groups do. It has an immediate effect, its seen on the news and it means you can at least feel like you have tried hard instead of moaned hard.
There are examples of direct action making a difference, like mass trespass, the Suffragettes, poll tax riots, etc. Small by comparison to changing the climate admittedly, but you can create a snowball effect. (if its fast enough the snowball wont melt).
It will either help or make you feel better. Win win as they say.
My recommendation is to enjoy what’s left and don’t have kids.
This. Nobody cares. Enjoy the decline.
do something direct like some of those climate action groups do
And end up going to prison on terrorism charges...
1– No use of gas or oil
2– No more shipping around the world
3– No more cruises/holidays abroad
4– No more meat
1. Could be problematic, i do like my gas fire, especially in winter, but if they reduce to cost of electricity I suppose a heater would be nearly as good.
2. Cant happen, not with Boris looking to buy all our foodstuffs from far abroad.
3. I've always been an exponent of holidays in the Uk, but then I live in Scotland which has some of the worlds best scenery and isn't chock-a-block population wise.
4. Ye Gads 😯 Nooooooooooooooooooo 😯 Sod future generations, If I can't have my steak, life wouldn't be worth living. 😛
kentishman
Free Member
Love the blame china for pollution.
One of the main reasons the uk has reduced CO2 emissions is that alot of manufacturing has been outsourced to china to make stuff for us so its really our pollution.
Adjusted for trade, it puts china on about -10%, india is similar, so 90% of their emissions are domestically consumed.
Does bring up the question of the morality of whether or not a seller should have responsibility or not, I'd think they do.
[img] 
[/img]
I see a council in Brighton and Hove have voted to remove a cycle lane on the Old Shoreham Road - well done, counsellors, well done. *slow handclap