[Closed] Quick poll/question on environmental issues

I think the preservation and protection of the environment is too important to be left to voluntary actions of individuals.

It's quite a wide ranging subject, from saving energy to not dropping litter, and I would like to think that I occasionally do things which have no direct personal gain for me, but we all need a kick up the arse.

Thanks.

Can I have some more opinions please? I'm just after viewpoints - any is good.

Ta

[No you're not doing my uni work for me!]

I cycle to work rather than drive for environmental reasons, it actually costs about the same to ride as it does to drive as I have to pay to get the ferry across the Mersey every day.
Makes me feel a bit better about my impact on the planet, however I often feel that it's a waste of my effort as I'm in a very small minority. Obviously it makes me a better MTBer commuting so much, double 'win'.

Ask him if he'd like a power station, or wind turbines, or a new road, or a refuse facility nearby.
Is he happy about poisoning of rivers by industrial processes, changing weather patterns, increased extinction of species, burning tyre dumps, deaths from air pollution, people dumping asbestos in his front garden?
Does he ever think about anyone apart from himself?

I try and reduce my impacts by driving sparingly, cycling most places or getting public transport, I buy good quality clothes made by reputable companies with ethical procurement policies (and which tend to last a long time), I don't eat meat often (and if I do I don't buy cheap meat), I've stopped eating Skate wings (although they're one of my favourite foods), I don't take lots of flights every year, I try and reduce what rubbish I put out and separate different recycling products. I don't throw much stuff away (a family problem) but what I do I try and ensure that it gets reused by someone else.

They are probably correct that the majority wont do anything that will affect how easy their life is but it is not true of all. I hate it when folk assume that everyone thinks like them and is motivated by exactly the same things as they are. That unpleasant mixture of arrogance and stupidity.

the reality is humans have known of the environmental impact for a number of decades and have ,IMHO, not done anything substantial to address this

Its unlikely we can have positive change and keep our standard of living and too many people a re unwilling to pay this price /live a slightly harder life.

People do make changes for reasons other than money, all the time. Some make very small changes that may not make any difference; some may make big sacrifices; and most are in between.

I disagree that most people have a "what's in it for me".
I agree with ernie that the issue is too important to be left to the voluntary actions of individuals. There needs to be a bigger effort to educate everyone convincingly on how we can change our ways. For example, increase recycling and the purchase of recycled goods, quitting the short trips by car and walking or cycling instead, insulating our homes better, etc.

It came about because I said I didn't like taking short flights due to the amount of fuel burnt etc.

http://www.wanderlust.co.uk/magazine/articles/destinations/to-fly-or-not-to-fly?page=all

and

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/06/aviation-q-and-a

Suggests I was right about the emissions. I wonder if I should point him at these?

I think on a macro scale he's spot on. On a micro and completely in the noise scale, some chose to recycle cardboard, cycle to work etc, but we're burning millions of barrels of oil every day to keep our lifestyle going and the only thing that will stop that is the price of oil/gas going up due to supply/demand.

[img] [/img]

We do our best in my house to live consciously with respect to the environment. We're not perfect by any means; my wife and I have simply tried to raise our kids to not be materialists. Together, we try to be conscious of what we consume, and use vehicles as little as possible.

Basically, we try to 'think globally and act locally', with no specific economic interest.

Interesting - so- no-one's going to say "I don't care" or "Nothing makes any difference"?

I met a guy on a Pollution Prevention Visit, who flat out told me he doesnt care about the environment, ran an electrical refurb business in Chipping Norton. He asked if we could see any problems, we said no and he said well piss off then, I explained that this was just advice and guidance and if he had any problems to get in touch, then he started on about who cares about rabbits and that f ing stuff, its all pathetic. On the way out one of his employees just rolled his eyes and shrugged.

My faith in [STW poster's] humanity has been somewhat restored 🙂

He's right. I'd go further in that people, like yourself, who claim to care and claim to do something positive are utterly deluded and as much a part of the problem as the non-deluded realist.

It depends - you don't know what I do, or not.

All you know is I don't like taking cheap flights [though I will tell you that what I have in mind is that flying when not actually necessary is something I avoid].

I think most people try to do the right thing because that's what they're told to do. They happily recycle waste or turn the lights off but they're mostly doing it because it's become the thing to do, not because they're desperately keen to save the environment or because they think they're making a difference.

I'm the same I guess. I cycle to work not because it's good for the environment or because it saves me money but because I like riding my bike and I detest sitting in traffic. Got to make it attractive to save the environment in some way.

I'd agree with the OP's nemesis, for the majority of folk

I try to live an ecologically ok life (with the exception of short flights, hotels 10 or so a year) because I believe it's the right thing to do in our wasteful and example-giving (to developing nations) society.

Sadly Joe Bloggs doesn't give a shit.

Look at any puncture thread on here - the majority don't even repair them once.

Save the environment, stop breeding. Simple.
Thus we are doomed.

It depends - you don't know what I do, or not.

Not liking 'cheap flights' kind of says it all really.

He's dead wrong about monetary gain being the driver behind behaviour at least as far as car use is concerned.

Lots of people make short journeys in cars that are much cheaper to undertake by bike or by walking - in this case the environmentally friendly option is the cheaper option, but it isn't taken due to lazieness, percieved convenience/or percieved status issues or safety concerns. And don't let him give you crap about time saving effectively being a cost saving as well as many cyclists have faster commutes than car drivers over the same route.

gofasterstripes - Member

I had a rather heated discussion with a guy on my course today, it was long and rather tedious, but in short he said "No-one will make any changes to their lifestyle choices to preserve the environment etc unless it's for their monetary gain". He also said he just doesn't care about this issue at all.

I disagree, but to keep this short - Who is with him on one or both of these issues?

he's right.

how many people would sacrifice their holiday in the sun next year because of concerns over CO2 emissions?

not me.

[s]how about you?[/s] (cheekily struck out as it's a bit antagonistic)

how many couples do you know who've decided not to have kids even though they're really broody, because their descendants western lifestyles will consume too many resources?

(i would guess; none)

The "Under a dollar a day" people are more likely to have >2.1 kids.

how about you?

I would/do, yes.

I recycle, ride to work, but then I'll be taking business class flights to Nigeria later this month with work. One flight will burn more oil than is saved by a lifetime of putting vegetable peelings in a green bin (which are then collected by a 15ton diesel guzzling lorry, doing about 2 mpg). I think recycling makes you feel good, but is actually pretty pointless.

gofasterstripes - Member

I would/do, yes.

do you realise this is unusual?

how many people would sacrifice their holiday in the sun next year because of concerns over CO2 emissions?

I haven't flown in a plane for nearly 10 years for this exact reason - I've turned down paid for by other people flights in preference for a ferry I paid for myself, and not accepted invitations for (prestigious but poorly paid - conferences and the like) work overseas on the basis of it - so it's not that I don't holiday in the sun, I simply don't fly - I went to the lake district by train on holiday last year - and it was bloody sunny.

In terms of the OP - I don't think that lifestyle changes are sufficient to ensure that we don't do catastrophic damage to the planet - that's not to say don;t change your lifestyle - it has a part to play, but we are unfortunately well past the point where that can make a significant difference - we are already at a point where environmental change will have a major impact on the planet in my lifetime, and this will become even more significant in the lifetime of my kids - but it will require a systematic change to really deal with this - no more "carbon trading" and other horseplay around pretending to be doing something.

ahwiles - do you do make any choices with an environmental aspect?

I think we should, I think we should make progress in that respect, and saying "There's no point" or "I can't be bothered" is not the direction we should be heading in. But I am studying design, so I will focus on my degree and make stuff that's built like that, as that's what I believe is important. As you are no-doubt aware - blowing hot air on a forum doesn't make a lot of difference.

I guess the reason I asked this was to gauge opinion. I won't pretend that the motivation wasn't emotion - I am upset by the attitude of "I could make some changes that make a difference*, but I won't".

I don't advocate living in a cave, and I don't advocate taking away choice [banning flying for example], what I advocate is education on the real environmental impact of everyday choices and discussion of how to reduce it with minimal disruption to our quality of life.

For example recycling [better, upcycling/cradle to cradle] when the facilities exist, buying local produce if it's available and not using short-haul flights [other people need to join in too on that] with no concern to the fuel used -the example I gave yesterday with regard to that was, use another method for business meetings where it is acceptable, maybe videoconferencing if both sides agree to it. Yes I also keep the heating off unless the house is under about 18, yes I ride my bike to work or uni and yes I use the Chromebook rather than the desktop to browse the web because it saves 100W or electricity use. I also don't eat meat as it's much more resource intensive [and for other reasons beyond the scope of this thread].

Some of these choices also save me money, but it's not my only goal.

As I said - it's the "I just don't care" bit that bugs me.

*real information requires research, and takes a little time, hence advocating education and discussion.

bokonon - Member
I haven't flown in a plane for nearly 10 years for this exact reason

do you think this is common?

footflaps - I understand that, of course I do. Are there some situations where a flight can be avoided? As for the recycling, well it's a drop in the ocean [or not] but if you can do it easily why would one not. As you said, you do.

ahwiles - yes. But that's not going to stop me suggesting it to people.

gofasterstripes - Member

ahwiles - do you do make any choices with an environmental aspect?

if i'm honest, ... probably not.

what would count?

i cycle to work, 8 miles each way, 1000ft of climbing on the way home, not because i'm an eco warrior, but because i can't afford a car. I'd love to be able to afford to sit in the warm, listening to Eddie Mair, bring on the traffic jams, i've only got to start cooking when i get home.

i don't have kids, but i suspect it's only a matter of time.

i live in a really cold old house - the heating's on a lot. I'm trying to insulate, but not because i'm worried about the polar bears (i am i suppose), but because i want to live in a warm house.

i keep my electronic stuff until it stops working, not because i care, but because i'm tight.

I recycle all our glass/tins/cardboard, not because i care, but because sheffield council no-longer collect the bins weekly, and our bin would fill up too quickly if i didn't.

these are a few things i could feel smug about, but i suspect it makes f'all difference.

ahwiles - it's not that uncommon, it would seem, in this sample at least.

the sooner the human race wipes itself out the better for the environment all round, the majority of what is done in the name of the "environment" is mere tinkering at the edges, year on year growth is not sustainable but "make do & mend" does not suit the economic model we are burdened with - for my two pennyworth, I think we should ration energy so the first x kwh (or whatever unit of measure) is cheap but as soon as you reach your allocation the price goes up to 5x - & yes I know there would be loads of ways round it & a nightmare to administer but would sure focus the minds somewhat. I like to think I try but in all honesty nah I do sweet fa that really helps the situation...

2 people? in a sample of 10?

on a thread clearly titled to attract people with at least some awareness/concern.

good science.

I find it interesting you use phrases like "eco-warrior". What's the point in labelling and dividing?

Anyway - I believe I have a moral obligation to do what I reasonably can. As such I'm off to study so I can get a good degree and make decisions that will make some [perhaps small] differences.

If I'm really lucky I might become famous or influential some day and be able to make and suggest bigger differences in the course the we're headed.

Please keep posting answers to the question I'm interested in hearing what people have to say

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

The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths — not just in countries like Britain but also those with very warm summers, including Greece. Both Britain and Greece see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent each winter. Especially cold winters cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during heatwaves.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

The question was whether "No-one" makes these decisions, so, 2 in a sample of 10 suggests: it may not be the case that "no-one" does.

It would, of-course, require and more diverse sample and larger sample to draw a conclusion. Especially if the conclusion had repercussions, like banning those flights for example. Don't try to "bad statistics" me!

Why is it that people are so keen to put words into my mouth?

EDIT for example - "CO2"... There are several global issues we face, that's not the only one.

gofasterstripes - Member

I find it interesting you use phrases like "eco-warrior". What's the point in labelling and dividing?

we got a request to all staff at work this morning, as we've got a load of visitors in tomorrow, can people please park in the second car park.

i voiced my observation that these emails (we get a lot) never include the request to consider car-sharing, or cycling.

in the opinion of my colleagues, [i]i'm[/i] an eco-warrior/idiot.

I often make comcious decisions that have less environmental impact, but they are more often than not for fiscal reasons...as I explained in my earlier post the proposition is a straw man.

By the way anyone who references the Spectator in a serious discussion about environmentalism automatically loses.

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

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

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

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

Does he ever think about anyone apart from himself?

Problem number one in modern society.

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

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

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

do you think this is common?

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

I tried to think of a [i]non[/i] biased thread title.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WTF?

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

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

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

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

maybe richer biodiversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[i] He also said he just doesn't care about this issue at all.[/i]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...or don't use a dishwasher?

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

Ok, I'll bite.

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

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

Sorry for the incoherent rant.

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

[img] [/img]

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

Missed the boat there fella, halferisers are where its at

Please can you share your specification for a

frikkin laser cleaner

The visual break requires Grade IV goggles....

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

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

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

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

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

How would you police such a thing?

James Whale called, he wants his show back 😆

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

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