You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The per person fuel use of a full 787 or A220 is only little bit more than a car.
Every study I've read says mile for mile, flying is the most damaging way to travel for the climate. Traveling to Berlin by air is the equivalent of 0.6tons CO2E - which is around 12000 miles equivalent by car.
A single European holiday can be by far the biggest chunk of an average families CO2 output.
And the above doesn’t even account for freight being simultaneously carried in the hold.
Our round trip flight to Sicily for 4 is the CO2 equivalent of 6500miles in a car doing the UK average of 42mpg and is our first flight for 4 years.
Long range aviation is responsible for 70% of emissions, but only 30% of flights. Business class seats account for almost 300% more emissions than economy on long range. BUT, despite occupying only 25% of the cabin, account for 77% of airline profit.
You can make it more environmentally sustainable, but less economically sustainable by reducing/removing business class…but all the evidence I’ve seen recently shows that business class flight isn’t going anywhere.
Its possibly the biggest personal pointless polluter you can remove from your life very very easily
Is it always pointless? Isn't it s good thing to see and appreciate the world and experience other cultures, cross borders, bring the world's people closer together?
Travelling can be a major life enrichment. Or it can be pointless...
Every study I’ve read says mile for mile, flying is the most damaging way to travel for the climate. Traveling to Berlin by air is the equivalent of 0.6tons CO2E – which is around 12000 miles equivalent by car.
That’s just plain wrong.
The A320NEO emits an average of 89g/pkm on short to medium haul routes.
Your Berlin round trip would be closer to 0.18t. By contrast, a typical 1.6-2.0 diesel or petrol would emit around 150g/km on the WLTP.
Admittedly, if you had 4 people in the car, that would be improved, but also you’d only be carrying yourselves, not any additional cargo.
EDIT - that’s a measured average not a mathematical theory.
Another thing to consider - 2.2% of global emissions…that’s what it cost to move 4.5bn people and 62m metric tonnes of goods around in 2019.
I heard a great quote on the r4 this morning, from proffessor steven pinker and it made me think of this thread and some of the doom-mongers in it.
journalism is a non-random sample of the worse things happening on earth at any given moment.
Is it always pointless
Flying? Yes, it's just getting to where you want to go quicker.
That’s just plain wrong.
Misleading in how I wrote it quickly this am, but not incorrect as those figures are per flight, not per passenger.
Even so, I still stand by traveling by air for a holiday, where all you do is consume and not contribute is still the largest waste of personal annuall co2. Personal development at this scale is irrelevant in a world of 7.75 billion people.
Is it always pointless? Isn’t it s good thing to see and appreciate the world and experience other cultures, cross borders, bring the world’s people closer together?
This is the most westernised pov in this thread so far, and is one reason I started the thread. Travel can be good, yes, how & why we travel is another matter.
There's an easy solution to the boomer problem. Issue a suicide pill to everyone when they start drawing the state pension and waive inheritance tax for those who use it. Problem solved.
#logansrun
I'm more the other way - tax the hell out of having more than one child (world wide), also bringing the end to the world as we know it.
tax the hell out of having more than one child
The problem is too many rich old people and not enough young people. We need people having more kids and fewer people living into their 90s and wasting away in care homes with dementia. I'm actually semi-serious about the suicide pill thing. I have zero wish to live into my 90s with a rotting brain and being a massive burden on my family. What I want is an easy painless way to pass on when I decide I'm done with it all.
is still the largest waste of personal annuall co2.
Given that what? 100 companies or so create 70% of emissions, persuading individuals that their personal CO2 emissions are important has got to be one of the most successful scams/bits of propaganda of late stage capitalism
The over 90's is such a teeny percentage of the population though, on the large scale, they're not really a burden.
Given that what? 100 companies or so create 70% of emissions, persuading individuals that their personal CO2 emissions are important has got to be one of the most successful scams/bits of propaganda of late stage capitalism
Given that almost all of the items those companies produce are 'required' in our society - personally I don't see international travel by flight for pleasure as needed.
The only way we will get those companies to become more environmentally sustainable is by individual action.
The over 90’s is such a teeny percentage of the population though
80s, 90s, whatever it is, the point still stands. I don't know anyone who wants to rot away in a care home whilst they lose their mind, so why do we allow it to happen? There's got to be a better way to manage how we end our lives. It sounds dystopian and there are lots of issues with it, but is it any worse than what we currently do?
Wouldn't normally share an Elon tweet as I don't like the man but thought it was apt for the thread.
The only way we will get those companies to become more environmentally sustainable is by individual action.
No, Individual action is the least useful way of changing things (see my comment about propaganda) You not flying is currently pointless, you won't affect any aviation today, tomorrow or the day after that, or in the years to come, you could personally never fly, and would make bugger all difference to a massive global industry. Only government legislation will or can have any effect, and that's the only point at which your efforts matter; by voting for parties that promise to legislate about pollution
Given that what? 100 companies or so create 70% of emissions,
I think more or less covered this on R4. Those 100 “companies” include China and Russia if I remember correctly on the grounds that stuff is state opened. They also attribute all of the emissions from oil produced by an oil company to that company not to the people that actually use the oil/gas/petrol etc.
It’s one of those “facts” that are great for people that want an excuse not to do anything but the fact is that companies create CO2 to make stuff that we consume. In the end it all still comes down to reducing consumption.
Only government legislation will or can have any effect, and that’s the only point at which your efforts matter; by voting for parties that promise to legislate about pollution
Which is individual action 🙄 - individual reduction / voting etc are the same, awareness of personal responsibility for the environment is something that we can all contribute towards its irrelevant how small an impact a single person makes.
Not doing something because you think everyone else is going to carry on doing it, doesn't help anyone.
Which is individual action 🙄
Not what you meant when you talked about not flying though, is it? At best it's distraction from what will actually make a difference to what are the big global issues that need resolving. individual action theory-of-change is a mental tic associated with a blinkered worldview of neoliberalism: Eco-consumerism may expiate your guilt. But it’s only mass movements and legislation that have the power to alter the trajectory of the climate crisis.
It always reminds me of that Al Gore film, where for two hours he describes this massive existential threat to humankind, and it's powerful and moving, and at the end he literally says "change your lightbulbs"
Not what you meant when you talked about not flying though, is it?
But it’s only mass movements and legislation that have the power to alter the trajectory of the climate crisis.
Its one and the same - it takes many peoples individual votes to change a government, it'll take many peoples actions to influence environmental issues.
Multiple individual action is a mass movement.
By not taking a flight, not using a plastic bag etc there is influence, just in a very small way. If everyone did it there are larger impacts. The only influence we have is our own.
As others have said in this thread It'll probably take a large event for the vast majority of humanity to change, by which point it'll be too late. The original question I posted at the start of the thread was when would this happen?
by which point it’ll be too late
For what? Humans are going to survive, regardless. We may be doing this to ourselves, but honesty looking at the broad sweep of our history we nearly always have in one way or another, I don't think we're capable of not doing this to ourselves.
The original question I posted at the start of the thread was when would this happen?
We all know the answer is simply - when it's too expensive. People* will keep flying on holiday and having 2 car households and buying N+1 bikes and all the rest of it until they can't afford it any more. Whether that's because oil starts to run out, or because governments tax the shit out of it, or whatever, that will be the deciding factor.
*Except for a few, who will stop but not in numbers significant enough to change the course of things
Is it always pointless? Isn’t it s good thing to see and appreciate the world and experience other cultures, cross borders, bring the world’s people closer together?
This is the most westernised pov in this thread so far
Is travelling only for people in the West then or what?
It's more of a middle class point of view, since they are the ones with the means to travel like that for leisure - but I think anyone could benefit, regardless of class. But I just said that for the sake of balance. Flying, like many things, has a negative impact but for a potentially positive use.
We've only flown for the last 100 years or so - the world still turned, trade was done and people still travelled the world for centuries before that (a bit slower though!).
Perhaps a cap on personal/leisure air travel? 6 flights/year per person?
Any more than that you'd have to prove a genuine need.
This ^^
We’ve only flown for the last 100 years or so – the world still turned, trade was done and people still travelled the world for centuries before that
Bit of a meaningless comparison, really. The world and the lives of most people in it were pretty different back then.
Flying, like many things, has a negative impact but for a potentially positive use.
I've been involved in some of the talk around Jet Zero, regional airport expansion plans, surface transport connectivity to those airports and (as usual), there's a lot of faith being put in as-yet-unquantified "technological solutions", a vague hope that hydrogen might somehow be a magic bullet in all of this but the absolute refusal from the regions to move away from aviation because they rely so heavily on the jobs and the business opportunities that it creates.
Everyone knows that flying is bad for the environment, not just in terms of emissions but land use, noise pollution, induced traffic within the area etc. but no region is willing to say no to a reduction in flights or a limit on expansion because "the economy".
It's so short sighted.
It’s so short sighted.
It is, but throwing blame around isn't really constructive. The concepts underlying most of the world's economy depend on things like this. Changing the way humanity lives on a global scale is not going to be easy or quick.
The world and the lives of most people in it were pretty different back then.
Not saying it hasn't, not saying ban flying either - but no-one [b]needs[/b] more than 3 fly-away holidays per year.
but no-one needs more than 3 fly-away holidays per year.
Agreed, but how much CO2 would it save if we put a 3-holiday cap on people?
but no-one needs more than 3 fly-away holidays per year.
no one 'needs' any fly-away holidays a year...
Agreed, but how much CO2 would it save if we put a 3-holiday cap on people?
Dunno - I'm not a scientist. But to quote Tesco "Every Little Helps"! 🙂
Agreed, but how much CO2 would it save if we put a 3-holiday cap on people?
Not a lot. Most people are not doing 3+ holidays a year where they're flying. There's a tiny minority (mostly the super rich) flying an absolute shitload (often on private jets which are vastly less fuel efficient per person).
And besides, there's still the issue of "holding flights" where airlines are flying mostly empty planes simply to use the take off and landing slots they have allocated. If they don't use them, they lose them.
The over 90’s is such a teeny percentage of the population though, on the large scale, they’re not really a burden.
Except in the healthcare sector - go look at the age of those taking up a bed in any hospital, vast majority will be old.
Agreed, but how much CO2 would it save if we put a 3-holiday cap on people?
According to the ONS, that would only affect about 8% of the population (I'm assuming that 'flights abroad' means 'return trips' here) - and most of that 8% would probably only have to take one fewer trip a year. I suspect this kind of thing is just tinkering at the edges...
Six leisure flights a year?!?!?!?
It's just a figure plucked out of thin air based on nothing more than a hunch most people may accept that. 🙂
Six flights = out > back; out > back; out > back - so 3 trips.
There is zero scientific thought in this. It's just a thought.
Given that what? 100 companies or so create 70% of emissions, persuading individuals that their personal CO2 emissions are important has got to be one of the most successful scams/bits of propaganda of late stage capitalism
And this is the kind of crap pedaled by people unprepared to make any changes to their lives.
Who are these 100 companies?
Energy companies - so that'll be the CO2 emitted to keep your car on the road, plane in the sky and house warm. What do you expect them to do to cut that, stop supplying you?
Airlines - stop flying with them then.
Shipping companies - stop buying stuff made in China.
Agribusiness - stop eating?
Chemicals manufacturing - stop everything?
Moaning that Shell and BA are big polluters is pretty pointless when you're filling up your car with 100l of dino juice and flying to the alps to enjoy the fondue with a bike Maersk shipped to you from China.
It’s just a figure plucked out of thin air based on nothing more than a hunch most people may accept that. 🙂
Six flights = out > back; out > back; out > back – so 3 trips.
There is zero scientific thought in this. It’s just a thought.
To put some vague numbers to to that:
Give or take a bit peoples carbon footprints average out at about:
1 part - their diet
1 part - their car
1 part - their house
1 part - their holidays
And that's an average, so a middle class 3 trips per year is being offset against someone who can't afford to go further than Rhyl.
And give or take we're also living about 4x beyond our means (5.4t CO2 equivalent, with the sustainable level estimated to be about 1.6).
So meat in your diet, fuel in your car, heat in your house, a flight to the Med once a year. Pick one.
Huh, "Dino Juice" I quite like that, will transfer to IRL
It’s just a figure plucked out of thin air based on nothing more than a hunch most people may accept that. 🙂
Six flights = out > back; out > back; out > back – so 3 trips.
Sorry, my hasty edit undermined your post a bit there. But still. You're probably right that a limit of 6x flights a year would be acceptable to most, rather like a limit of 1 indoor swimming pool per house... 😉
So meat in your diet
I always find this argument interesting as I run a village shop. The beef/lamb/mince we sell comes from within three or four miles from the shop, chicken is a bit further afield (30miles). Granted the animals need care, feed and a bit of mileage for slaughter. But the vegetarian food we sell generally is either heavily processed or some of the veg comes from much much further afield (lots of air miles or ship). Which is better for the environment and has less co2 impact?
Generally when talking about meat production the focus drifts to intensively reared stock heavily reliant on supplemental feeding rather than locally sourced grass fed.
I dont actually know what proportions of the markets those two types actually account for?
But yeh, Avocados and Bananas could do with dropping from the menu.
The beef/lamb/mince we sell comes from within three or four miles from the shop, chicken is a bit further afield (30miles). Granted the animals need care, feed and a bit of mileage for slaughter. But the vegetarian food we sell generally is either heavily processed or some of the veg comes from much much further afield
But, most of those cows and sheep will have been fed on other foods besides grass, and those foods will be made from say corn or soy shipped from elsewhere.
The reason meat has a higher footprint is that if you fed the soy directly to humans rather than to the cows/sheep, you'd have about 10x more food.
We can feed the cows and sheep on grass alone, but we cannot raise as many that way. So that's why they ask us to eat less. I am of the opinion that a certain amount of meat is needed because some land is only suitable for grazing, but it's less than we eat now.
I run a village shop. The beef/lamb/mince we sell comes from within three or four miles from the shop................
Which is better for the environment and has less co2 impact?
Which is fine if you live within 3 or 4 miles of a farm that can feed the catchment area.
What about everyone in Manchester ?
I always find this argument interesting as I run a village shop. The beef/lamb/mince we sell comes from within three or four miles from the shop, chicken is a bit further afield (30miles). Granted the animals need care, feed and a bit of mileage for slaughter. But the vegetarian food we sell generally is either heavily processed or some of the veg comes from much much further afield (lots of air miles or ship). Which is better for the environment and has less co2 impact?
It's almost all in the feed (and the farts). It takes a whopping amount of imported soy etc to rear a cow for beef compared to turning that soy into tofu, or meat-substitutes. Think about it in terms of human growth. If you eat 200g of beef, you don't gain 200g of muscle. Same for the cow, it needs vast amounts of protein to synthesize that meat, which we then eat and mostly burn off as energy rather than actually use the protein for further muscle synthesis.
Some figures to that:
An "athlete" (i.e. someone trying to gain muscle rather than just subsist) might gain muscle at a maximum rate of about 500g/month. Whilst consuming about 150g of protein a day. 150g of protein is about 800g of meat.
800*30 = 24kg
The ratio of protein rich food to actual muscle is therefore 24000:500, or 48:1
So for you to grow that 500g of muscle somewhere along the line 500*48*48 = over a ton of high protein food had to be produced (making the rough assumptions that the cows metabolism works at a similar rate of muscle synthesis, and high protein soy based feeds have a similar density of protein to meat).
Generally when talking about meat production the focus drifts to intensively reared stock heavily reliant on supplemental feeding rather than locally sourced grass fed.
Very little meat is "grass fed". Have you been outside to a field in England lately, there's not been grass since June. And then in winter most cattle ate kept indoors, hence why the minimum standards to call something grass fed/outdoor reared is ~180 days.
But, most of those cows and sheep will have been fed on other foods besides grass, and those foods will be made from say corn or soy shipped from elsewhere.
Maybe, maybe not, the UK has good land for mainly grass fed livestock. So he could have beef from that segment of production rather than something like this https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/29/revealed-industrial-scale-beef-farming-comes-to-the-uk
The bulk of our imports I think actually come from Ireland which I think is also pretty good at being pasture fed stock.
Edit
Im happy to be corrected here, I suspect Ive a memory of reading something painting a very one sided picture.
Very little meat is “grass fed”
Isnt this a global stat, rather than a national one?
I'm late to this thread so sorry of this has already been covered.
I have three kids, aged 17, 15 and 13. So in the next 10-20 years they would traditionally be quite likely to have kids of their own. I genuinely think they shouldn't. Of course it is not for me to tell them what to do, and they don't listen to me anyway. But it is hard to see a good future for anyone beyond their generation.
Isnt this a global stat, rather than a national one?
National, you don't need google to figure this out, grass is only actively growing in the spring and autumn, you'd get nowhere near an economically viable density of cattle on the land if you only fed them grass and therefore needed to grow sufficient number of meadows to rotate them through over the summer and winter.
Summer and Winter they'll be on a supplementary feed.
That's why the minimum requirement to label beef as "grass feed" is it has to have lived 51% of it's life outdoors. It doesn't even have to actually be eating grass during that time.
And this is the kind of crap pedaled by people unprepared to make any changes to their lives.
Not really. It's a realistic expectation that the real gains come from legislating to change the industries rather than relying on individuals to affect changes -which given we've been plugging away at this for at least a couple of decades now, doesn't seem to be having the effect we want.
You can't simultaneously allow airlines to offer cheap flights to the Med while at the same time expect and encourage people not to fly.
But it is hard to see a good future for anyone beyond their generation.
But wasn't it always thus? My MiL talks of her guilt in the 80's with two young kids: AIDS, nukes, Chernobyl, famines, acid rain, etc. It looked grim! But it wasn't that all that bad in the end.
Although one of her kids was unfortunate enough to marry me, so maybe she had a point.
It’s a realistic expectation that the real gains come from legislating to change the industries rather than relying on individuals to affect changes
A sentiment that rings true for just about every issue that rampant, unfettered capitalism has subjected us to.
Not really. It’s a realistic expectation that the real gains come from legislating to change the industries rather than relying on individuals to affect changes
Is that really realistic? Doesn't seem to be happening.
you don’t need google to figure this out
Well, i did google it and
In Britain, pretty much all beef cows graze grass in the summer and are fed hay, silage or straw in winter. In many cases they’ll remain grazing throughout winter too, but for some farmers this isn’t possible or viable.
https://greatbritishmeat.com/blogs/butchers-blog/grass-fed-beef
Im not suggesting thats correct, i dont know either way. Certainly not exactly looking like an unbiased source.
I do know of people who graze their cattle outside year round, albeit a sample size of 2 farms.
It’s a realistic expectation that the real gains come from legislating to change the industries rather than relying on individuals to affect changes
look at single use carrier bags. all it took to enact a massive drop in usage was to charge people 5p for a bag.
5p!
AIDS, nukes, Chernobyl, famines, acid rain,
These are mostly resolvable / avoided, with the exception of famine (in the scheme of things). Nukes just don't get dropped, which depends on people not doing it granted, but its in their immediate interest not to.
The climate catastrophe is a different matter. Its an aeroplane sliding down a snowy mountain towards a cliff, and we need enough speed before we hit the cliff to take off. At the moment, we're being dragged back too much.
On the meat argument, all meat production requires large amounts of land and water resources - regardless of where in the world, but some more than others. The simple way to view it is that the land and resources being used for that *could* be forested land, busily sequestering carbon, providing habitats for biodiversity. But it's not, its emitting carbon and being pillaged for each crop instead.
Is that really realistic? Doesn’t seem to be happening.
No it doesn't, and neither does individual actions, and it seems like the worst sort of secular Puritanism that "normal" people living "normal" lives are punished in the worst way - being offered something, but at the same time being told it's either bad for them, or for the environment, so they musn't do it. People generally are pretty bad at making those sorts of decisions for themselves.
Im not suggesting thats correct, i dont know either way. Certainly not exactly looking like an unbiased source.
I think it's fair to say that's a completely biased source?
I do know of people who graze their cattle outside year round, albeit a sample size of 2 farms.
But do they feed them over winter/summer?
Like I said, you don't need to google, just look outside to figure out the cow's are going to be eating more than just grass and water in the southern part of England at the moment regardless of what the packet or "greatbritishmeat.com" says:
Is that really realistic? Doesn’t seem to be happening.
Surely it has already happened a lot?
There is quite a bit of environmental legislation in a lot of countries, isn't that what you are talking about?
Yes, it's currently lagging behind the issues, and it's not enough, but there is obviously far more legislation and awareness than there used to be.
But do they feed them over winter/summer?
Mostly hay/silage but were well over a decade since any conversation.
Outside, locally, yesterday, grass is being cut for winter feed. Im not sure why youd think what I can see outside is indicative of anything for recent trends anyway.
I think it’s fair to say that’s a completely biased source?
Well, weve both suggested it so I think you already know what my answer is. But how do I know your not just as biased without anything to back up what your saying?
Youd end up believing all sorts of completely contradictory stuff on this forum with that approach.
Its the people who are being affected right now by global warming i feel sorry for. Those suffering from increased drought and famine in the hottest parts of the world. I'm not sure i really care that much about what humanity looks like for my grandkids grandkids. We have brought this on ourselves and still continue to do so. After we have all gone, the earth will still be here and new species will eventually turn up.
Well, weve both suggested it so I think you already know what my answer is. But how do I know your not just as biased without anything to back up what your saying?
I grew up on a farm, so I've got at least a vague grasp of the practicalities and economics of it.
Only a very small proportion of beef cattle in this country live in locations where they can be fed naturally and outdoors for the whole or the majority of the year.
Even here in Angus, more than half of the beef cattle are kept indoors throughout their entire lives, never feeding on natural grass; they're on a mix of sileage and supplementary grains & proteins. That's incredibly intensive in terms of resources. We eat beef significantly less than once a month as a result, a conscious effort to reduce our impact. If you're buying supermarket 'Grass fed, Scottish Beef' there's a high probability it has come from one of these sort of vast shed networks unless it specifically states outdoor bred- and even then, as mentioned above, it only spends half it's time outdoors. Several farms in this small and insignificant end of Angus have over 1000 beasts in their sheds. Others are certified as 'organic', while keeping 5-600 head of cattle out on compact, grass feedlots, Americam style with heavily supplemented feeds. 'Organic'!? Madness.
Venison is a better alternative in almost every way.
In Ireland, the farming press is trying to greenwash their Coos & Grass economy by claiming to be carbon neutral; the carbon in the beef has been drawn in from the CO2 in the air by the grass!! Conveniently ignoring the many-times impact of the methane their cattle are merrily farting out and the fossil fuels burned in the sileage process, which is a vast industry in itself..
Realistically, the only truly effective way to reduce your household's environmental impact is not to have any children. It is a hard message for many to stomach but is the only thing that's going to give humanity a chance of a controlled survival. We have to drastically reduce the numbers of rich, resource consuming people on this wee planet, it's as simple as that. Meantime do whatever you can; plant trees, travel a lot less, don't fly at all. Use a bike to do commutes and shopping; buy quality so it lasts, repair; look after an older car. Moderate water consumption; same with energy, if you can. Think about the impact of everything you do and try to take the better options as often as possible.
At the end of the day, would you trust these self-serving ****s in Westminster to have your family's best interests at heart? Take some responsibility for yourself and your community.
I wonder how much co2 a bicyclist exhales when exerting themselves in trail centers and off road excursions....
tum-tee tum.... 😛
look at single use carrier bags. all it took to enact a massive drop in usage was to charge people 5p for a bag.
Single use plastic bag donations to charity from local convenience shops have doubled form where they were in 2019 (according to defra), article today in retail news. So we are using less plastic bags in supermarkets, but more from local shops. Overall the demand for plastic bags has dropped, but it's one area where the pandemic wasnt good for the environment as people switch from larger supermarket shops to local, more frequent shopping.
I'd expect this trend to change over the course of this year.
Those suffering from increased drought and famine in the hottest parts of the world.
Humanity has over populated these areas for the last 300 years, it's not a climate issue. Its too many people living somewhere that cant support them.
The climate impact comes as the size of the uninhabitable areas increases and the capacity for habitable areas reduce. On the flip side more areas in the far north should become habitable and support larger populations.
The issue with humans is a migration one with all the hard borders we have.
I agree that change will only come from legislation.
The political system at the moment will only see the introduction of legislation if it is popular, or if it generates profit for corporations without being very unpopular.
Off the top of my head I could think of a dozen policies that could be legislated to start making real changes. Massive changes, much bigger than a few plastic bags. But these would have massive push back from the public. So the laws needed for change will only come when people are ready for it.
I wonder if high inflation, a reduction in living standards, and a shift in the boundary of acceptable inequality will be a catalyst for change.
For example, no one needs a big heavy and powerful car for private use. It would be sensible, practical and beneficial to impose a limit, for example max 2000kg, 50bhp/ton. Yes it would be slow compared to a current car, but so what, it would still do what is needed, at a base level. Practically there would be no difference. At the moment that would be unpopular. However if people can't afford new cars anymore, perhaps the new limits could be accepted, because everyone would benefit, and only the richest would loose out.
The same with flying. If only the wealthiest can afford to fly regularly, it would be more widely accepted that there should be a limit on how much we can fly.
Realistically, the only truly effective way to reduce your household’s environmental impact is not to have any children.
We don't all need to have no kids. We just need to have no more than two. Because some people will naturally not want to have kids or not be able to, then the birth rate will end up less than 2 and the population will decline.
It would be sensible, practical and beneficial to impose a limit, for example max 2000kg, 50bhp/ton. Yes it would be slow compared to a current car, but so what, it would still do what is needed, at a base level. Practically there would be no difference. At the moment that would be unpopular. However if people can’t afford new cars anymore, perhaps the new limits could be accepted, because everyone would benefit, and only the richest would loose out.
If you look at the 1950s, people in the US were driving huge cars whilst we in the UK were mostly driving tiny ones, if we had one at all. This is because we had far less disposable income, and petrol was more expensive. It's still true today to a lesser extent.
But I agree re legislation, and that is what they are attempting to do - only rather than arbitrary limits on hp and weight, they are attempting to nudge the manufacturers with legislation and guidelines. It's worked to an extent but it's not enough, because the guidelines were for whole fleets, rather than say penalties for specific cars. So my current courtesy car, a petrol Hyundai i10, is remarkably efficient returning 50-60mpg on suburban trips, I still see far too many Tuscons on the road.
Imagine if all we had avaialble was one range of cars. You can choose from three or four models, but that's all there is. Those models are as efficient as possible, they get refined and developed. You can only get them on a ten year lease (unless circumstances change e.g. you have kids), and used ones are cheaper deals. They'd be designed for durability and repairability, with cheap parts and galvanised chassis etc. We'd all be richer, the environmental impact would be much lower (since we'd be making far fewer cars) and live could continue EXACTLY as it does now.
This ☝️
Its a good time to remind ourselves that when polled on what they thought the key issues facing the country were, only 4% of the Tory membership selecting the next grand poobah thought that climate change was worthy of bothering with. They seem genuinely more worried about what effects 'wokery' and 'the lefty cabal in education' (or just education itself) are having on society. If that truly represents their values then we cant expect change to come through legislation any time soon enough.
Do you not think..
Humanity has over populated these areas for the last 300 years, it’s not a climate issue.
Is a bit contradictory to then saying...
The climate impact comes as the size of the uninhabitable areas increases and the capacity for habitable areas reduce.
But it is hard to see a good future for anyone beyond their generation.
This is sad, but true for many.
GF and I made the decision years ago that we don't want kids. One of the reasons is that we're selfish and look at our friends with kids and decided none of them are particularly happy with their new status quo. The other reason is the ongoing impact on the world's resources.
We don't fly (arrived in the UK via train to Paris and the Eurostar from Munich.... Was only €20 more than flying.... Family think I'm odd for making that decision). We ride our bikes to work, shopping, to go see friends. People think we're odd that we would rather ride our bikes for an hour than sit in a car for 20 mins to get somewhere. Sod them. I like being odd.
She's veggie and by proxy so am I for 99% "of my meals.
But where do you start. It's hard to break the status quo. People do things because that's the way they've always done it.
Be the change you want to see.
Aspire to inspire.
Aspire to inspire.
Fine words, Apart from a transatlantic flight every 5 years or so (wife's Canadian) we rarely - if ever fly, we're completely vegetarian contemplating veganism (too much processed foods currently for my liking) Our 1.5l car has done less than 10k in 2 years, and I cycle and she walks to work. Our house thermometer max is 19degs
But I don't think for a second that my lifestyle is making anyone else think about changing their's though.
Humanity has over populated these areas for the last 300 years, it’s not a climate issue.
They're absolutely linked. The more humanity in an area, the more use of resources, deforestation, pollution/emissions, loss of biodiversity and so on. Which then exacerbates the climate issue.
Could solve a lot of the world's issues with a dramatic reduction in human population...
I believe vegans/vegetarians fart more than carnivores, though maybe they dont contribute to the atmosphere as much as cows etc do.
So back in the age of the dinosaurs, we might not know what it all looked like. But we sure know what it smelled like.
😯
Fine words, Apart from a transatlantic flight every 5 years or so (wife’s Canadian) we rarely – if ever fly, we’re completely vegetarian contemplating veganism (too much processed foods currently for my liking) Our 1.5l car has done less than 10k in 2 years, and I cycle and she walks to work. Our house thermometer max is 19degs
I was thinking this through earlier.
Veggie, and aiming to cut down on dairy because I probably eat more cheese than is healthy.
House is set to 18C over most of the winter and I actively try and make the most of the passive heating from the conservatory during spring/autumn by opening and closing the door during the day so the boiler is only doing the heavy lifting for ~3 months.
I've not had a* car since 1st week of June. And before that I'd made a commitment to significantly cut my work mileage by taking the train, bikes and car sharing.
2x return flights in the last decade?
*useable, it's been broken down and parked on the drive, but I've not missed it.
This is why it annoys me when some people say they drive 20k a year, take 3 holidays, and couldn't possibly give up meat. They could quite probably do all three, they just don't want to.
This is why it annoys me when some people say they drive 20k a year, take 3 holidays, and couldn’t possibly give up meat.
Those are the people who make me feel like a complete mug for sitting there trying to peel the last bits of sellotape off a cardboard parcel before chucking it in the recycling!
they just don’t want to
Sure, and they likely never will. The lifestyle you've describe there is "normal" for lots of people, they don't think that they're contributing to environmental damage, they're just average folks*. They don't see themselves as being the "problem that needs solving" Most individuals aren't going to decide to do this, and companies simply won't.
Like I said it's no good pestering people to change their habits and then "allow" Peruvian blueberries to be on sale 2-for-1 in November, that's just unfair.
*and average folks shouldn't have to take un-average measures. Folks should be left to get on with their lives. If we (people who care about this shit) want folks to come with us, we have to make it as easy for them as we can.
But forcing a change to what is average is rather unpopular. Politicians don't want to do unpopular things.