You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
No. I’ve already said – the message isn’t wrong. The receivers of the message are the problem because they don’t like it.
Right, and how do you make them like it?
My (and the union of concerned scientists) would be one – because that’s what is needed.
That would cause serious economic issues (and take ages) so you'd ALSO have to reconfigure the global economy, how're you going to do that?
The difference between you and me is that for you this is theoretical. For me – I’ve been watching this crap pan out in real life for my whole life
What do you mean by this?
I think the difference between you and me is that I understand how to manipulate people a lot better.
Right, and how do you make them like it?
You can't. It's a fundamentally unlikeable message for most people.
Which is why we don't make it.
That would cause serious economic issues (and take ages) so you’d ALSO have to reconfigure the global economy
I already said this. You're now not even following the basic argument and straying into just "saying stuff".
Wholesale radical change - economy, lifestyle, population size. Wholesale radical change.
@tjagain gets what's required.
Everything you described is based around you and you alone. That’s quite selfish.
So, I've done everything possible for myself at great personal cost - and now I have to do it for other people?
Get your heads out of your asses and be responsible for your own actions.
Are you all babies? You can see what's required. Quit whining about it and DO IT.
Jesus Christ! Reread what you’ve just typed and realise why nobody will ever listen to you or agree with you. Your people skills are living in the negative zone.
I’m fully responsible for my own actions thanks. I’m also aware that it’s not always easy for others to be. Hence why I’ve chosen to help. When it comes to climate change the more people that fully understand the issues, the better. That has to be delivered by people with people skills, empathy and understanding. Things you appear to lack. Building your own sustainable world at great expense is fine and dandy. If you’ve not even managed to convince your own family to make change then you’ve just pissed in the wind.
You can’t.
You can't, no. Fortunately others in this area aren't so misanthropic and don't give up quite so easily.
Wholesale radical change – economy, lifestyle, population size. Wholesale radical change.
Yes.. but HOW??? Everyone who's thought about this knows there needs to be major changes - it's so easy to say. But how to actually do it? That's what I am concerned about.
Basically, you've come on saying 'we need change' and then when gone 'oh it's too hard let's give up' when pressed. I mean, really.
Education (including Carbon Literacy for adults),
Lobbying your MP,
Direct Action,
Community work,
Joining organisations/charities,
Pensions,
Diet,
Reducing car use,
Measure your own Carbon Footprint and plan to reduce (to circa 7t to start) as much as possible.
Monitor energy usage,
Turn your thermostat down by a couple of degrees,
Repair clothes, buy UK made or second hand.
They are all starting points that are relatively simple as per the OP and they will actually make a difference despite what some would have you believe.
Anything else is longer term and needs proper planning. It’s not too late despite what others are posting on here. We can limit warming, we just all need to start taking action now, small steps with a plan to go bigger within five years. Aim for a 5t footprint. Giving up or demanding everyone kills their firstborn child and lives in a Yurt close to their place of work isn’t going to work.
What's very disappointing is the government's failure to capitalise on the WFH boom. Companies are trying to get people back into offices and the govt is encouraging it. This is an absolute scandal as it's wasting millions of gallons of fuel for no good reason.
If companies were incentivised to have employees WFH then they'd be all over it.
I think one of the biggest things we could do would be to somehow get people to stop buying tat. My wife had a conversation at work yesterday with someone who was complaining about the cost of living, and that they couldn't afford to buy Christmas pyjamas for the family this year. That's right - Christmas pyjamas. Every year they bought a new set of matching pyjamas for their family, for Christmas. What the actual **** is wrong with people? THIS kind of thing needs to be unacceptable.
However, half the world's economy is based on selling cheap tat to the other half. So if we all stopped over night, there would need to be some serious economic re-adjustment in large parts of the world. Solutions are likely to cause knock-on problems. That's why it's hard, and that's why it needs a lot of planning.
This is funny:
My wife had a conversation at work yesterday with someone who was complaining about the cost of living, and that they couldn’t afford to buy Christmas pyjamas for the family this year. That’s right – Christmas pyjamas. Every year they bought a new set of matching pyjamas for their family, for Christmas. What the actual **** is wrong with people? THIS kind of thing needs to be unacceptable.
This is my family.
There is no convincing people like this of the wholesale reform they need to make to their lives. And, frankly, this is the majority of humans.
All the things on @funkmasterp's list I've done and a lot more. I've "been the change you want to see in others" - and frankly, I have great social skills - I'm the guy they send in to calm shit down (and I'm very well paid for it). Just not on the internet - where's the benefit?
After 70 years of touchy-feely environmental activism we've done nothing. We're tinkering around the edges.
Last post just for thought:
The suffragettes. Remember them? Universally applauded for really getting the ball rolling on women's equality.
Their single most effective action that brought about change? No, it's not blocking roads or chaining themselves to fences (although they did indeed do a lot of that).
It was the bombing campaign they carried out.
...
Humans ain't going to do anything about the environment. Not really. We've overseen a 70% decline in living animal species since 1970. 70%. Yet we've taken more action over Ukraine - like that's anything other than just another idiotic human chimpanzee-like squabble.
Collectively we are dumb as a box of frogs. We don't make it. We know what to do - but people moan about messaging.
YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO - SO JUST BLOODY DO IT. If you've not already done everything you can possibly do yourself, then you're a hypocrite to moan about anything or anyone else.
Energy tax in all forms. By which I mean, the more energy you use the more it's going to cost per unit.
Want a big thirsty car? Sure but as you are going to put more petrol in it, your petrol will cost more per litre.
Big house that's inefficient and wastes energy? You will pay more per unit as your chucking lots of energy away.
Small car, small house, efficient use of power? You pay less per unit.
No. I’ve already said – the message isn’t wrong. The receivers of the message are the problem because they don’t like it.
funkmaster
The message is wrong or being delivered incorrectly then.
So assume the message is correct - how do you propose to deliver it?
Any population level of above about 3bn needs *massive* changes to our consumption models. If you read the actual studies (rather than post a normal distribution curve of studies that have been done (regardless of quality)) that becomes really clear.
So we can argue over 3 or 5 ... but possibly more important is what does "our" mean? STW, the UK or globally?
As I posted earlier we actually need to define what "eco solutions for society" actually means and stop pissing about with peripheral stuff. The example I gave was assuming we could agree the most pressing problem is climate change then replace petrol with diesel and abolish ULEZ zones.
Both of these would cut CO2 ... but it seems people are more concerned by air quality, not having nuclear or having fracking close to them.
In another thread I suggested we need to start fracking for gas and using CBM whilst we develop nuclear.... but nope people aren't happy to have fracking due to pretty much the same people prevented us having nuclear in place for decades.
Rather than the inconvenience, people would rather use the gas that billions need to cook without open wood fires in the 3rd world and let 3rd world taxis and rickshaws run on old petrol engines even if that gas is fracked/CBM.
So instead we end up virtue signalling to the developing world whilst stealing the resources they need.
If WE (STW/UK) are not going to put up with some small inconveniences how on earth do we expect the developing world to make the changes they need to do?
Energy tax in all forms.
Yep. But what does that mean in reality.
Oh wait? Energy is going to cost us 4 grand a year? WE NEED BAILOUTS!
We need proper government action - "insulate britain" has been around in some form since the mid 1980's. It's been no secret. But voters will be voters and governments will be governments.
The suggestion by some MPs that we put on jumpers and wrap up warm has had the public (and the press) calling them facists.
Try having more expensive home heating in a manifesto and see how many votes you get. Many people support eco friendly in theory but not when it means it is costing them money or they need to stop taking international flights.
So assume the message is correct – how do you propose to deliver it?
firstly you need to get the great unwashed to understand how big of an issue climate change actually is. Because at the moment people really don’t get it. This place isn’t a great example of the world at large. Relatively affluent and educated in the main to above the level of most is how I would describe this place.
That isn’t the norm. Hell, I don’t meet any of the above criteria. This means keeping the climate crisis front and centre in the news and media in general. Not demonising those taking direct action and altering the car is king culture we have. Then you do things such as Carbon Literacy training in the workplace and community. Begin to educate everyone on what’s happening, why it’s happening and how we, as individuals, families, communities, workplaces and countries need to address it.
Get people invested in making a change, reward them in some way. Be that financially or a metaphorical pat on the head. Being a bit of a ****, yelling at people and calling them babies is never going to get results other than being ignored, told to **** off or being physically assaulted.
We managed to get people to (mostly) comply with Covid restrictions for the greater good. If we can do that then we can do this. Treat it in the same way. An urgent, life threatening matter, because after all that is precisely what it is. Rather than telling folk they can’t have kids or a car, show them and tell them how the world will look in five, ten, fifteen years etc. Make them realise that yes, this will have a negative impact on you.
Anything is better than the attitude of some shown on this thread. I’ve done my bit or I’m not making change are both shitty positions to take. Do something, anything! That starts with knowledge and that’s what the majority are lacking. Having Attenborough do twice yearly specials isn’t going to cut it.
I don’t have all the answers, nobody does and that’s the whole point. It’s better for a few billion people to start by making changes they can live with than doing **** all or beavering away making your own changes without educating others as to why you’re doing it.
We managed to get people to (mostly) comply with Covid restrictions for the greater good.
Not sure that is the best example. If beating climate change means not attending funerals and being a criminal for exercising more than 5 miles from home I'm out.
2 years of Covid rules nearly bankrupted the country how long will we need to run with eco rules?
Anyone that wants to impose huge lifestyle changes on the country needs to put it in a manifesto and run for parliament.
It’s a great example. It shows you can get the majority of a nation to adapt and change quickly to a threatening event. Climate change needs to be treated with the same level of urgency and receive a similar level of media coverage.
Your other points are rather odd and pretty specific to Covid. Although traveling five miles to exercise regularly, if done by car, probably isn’t a great thing to do tbh.
As per always, those advocating a sharp decline in population are more than welcome to inspire the rest of us and lead by example.
I take issue with whoever it was on this thread stating most folk on this thread want to be a part of the solution. Its simply not so. You only want to be a part of the solution if you can do so without the lifestle changes needed.
People need to understand that without radical change the planet is fubar.
Only a couple of folk on here actually understand this
Only a couple of folk on here actually understand this
And one of thems a crypto evangelist - so even they don't really understand even if they talk about doing so.
Frankly - it's not a life style change your proposing. In the current market of wages and costs that your clearly massively out of touch with as evidenced through out the whole thread. - it's largely homelessness(at least in the UK)your proposing.
That's why your proposals are about as popular as Liz truss manifesto.
As I pointed out much earlier 40 years ago this was a choice
Today it's not unless your born with the silver spoo or very lucky.
Asside from mass euthanasia
And there you make my point for me. Without radical change then the planet is fubar but any solutions are seen as not acceptable
Re flights, I've been on 2 in my entire life. Was curious about proportion of population which does regularly fly. There's a study which suggests 90% of UK flights are taken by 2% of the population.
And there you make my point for me. Without radical change then the planet is fubar but any solutions are seen as not acceptable
Well when you come up with real solutions . Let us know. Right now your solutions are the real world equivalent of go back to the stone age and live in caves.
People need to understand that without radical change the planet is fubar.
I accept this. What I am doing is pointing out how difficult this is to actually implement, because that's where we need to focus our efforts.
Saying 'we need radical change' is not very useful. Figuring out how to get people to accept and actually want radical change is the real problem that needs solving. That's what I'm trying to explore here. It appears that you think I'm denying the issue, but I'm not - just moving onto the actual difficult parts.
So let's talk about HOW to get the radical change we need? How to create the desire for change? How to get our political leaders to enact it?
Only a couple of folk on here actually understand this
Most people over the age of 10 realise that the world we live in the Rich "Western countries" in is unsustainable. For most people I think they feel (rightly) IMO that the tinkering around the edges that is available to them is (largely) pointless frippery that while slaving their own conscious will do little to nothing to actually help on the scale that's needed.
most people over the age of 10 realise that the world we live in the Rich “Western countries” in is unsustainable.
I honestly don’t think they do and if they do, it’s a rather woolly interpretation. As per my previous posts STW is not representative of the country as a whole. This is why keeping it front and centre in the news and educating all ages are fundamental first steps.
I was speaking at a community event a couple of weeks ago and there were adults in the audience that didn’t know methane was a GHG, let alone a potent one.
Is it too much to ask that we all follow this man's example of a low carbon lifestyle? We would have to substitute the porcupines for hedgehogs though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-63389045
Having a wash clearly lead to his demise. Proof that not washing my bike car or children is the correct choice!
I was speaking at a community event a couple of weeks ago and there were adults in the audience that didn’t know methane was a GHG, let alone a potent one.
And yet here we are, advocating a vegan diet 🙂
Only a couple of folk on here actually understand this
@tjagain - Please, do tell - who understands this and who doesn't? I'm genuinely curious. Also, please be aware, that If any of my posts came across as insulting/aggravating, that wasn't my intent. I'm just here for debate. I abhor and echo chamber.
I honestly don’t think they do.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/belief-in-climate-change
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/are-concerns-around-climate-change-exaggerated
Most people recognise it's happening, and most people understand that the threat isn't exaggerated.
I was reflecting yesterday - I have (ridiculously) taken UK internal flights on occasion. No more, and so was sat on the London-Edinburgh train.
Related to carbon taxes, we should immediately remove the tax free fuel from all airlines. That money should then go directly into long term investment internally for better and faster rail travel. The only exception should be the roads based pricing for the Scottish islands flights.
Why should there be an islands exception? Start of a slippery slope once you say something needs done but.....
Daffy
Who on here is prepared to make the major lifestyle changes? Almost no one. Are you prepared to give up you car?
Its obvious that folk simply do not get the reality of how severe this is. Its obvious because they will not accept that the only solution is radical lifestyle changes. They are only paying lip service.
Who on here is prepared to make the major lifestyle changes? Almost no one. Are you prepared to give up you car?
We have competing pressures. Most people are not in great control over their lives, because they don't have enough money to be able to take that control. Now please, for the love of mike, don't say 'well I managed it so you can too'. That's just not helpful. Not everyone is in the same situation as you, not everyone's lives follow the same path. So you need to try and understand other people's needs and their problems, and what is preventing them from making the right changes.
I agree with you in so much as "most" folks, (as this thread neatly demonstrates) have either no belief that they can do much to change how the world is currently organised, and their efforts are; by that scale, teeny. Or have a comprehension of the sorts of things that rich western countries have to do to stop or reverse what we're doing, and have come to conclusion that without a supra-national organisation to drive it, it probably won't happen, or are waiting for the "Genius with a plan" to come along and save us from ourselves.
Then you've got the issue that what's possible on an individual basis becomes problematic when everyone does it. So let's say my wife gets a job at one of the few local businesses - great, I can boast about that. But clearly not everyone who lives in this area can do that as there simply aren't enough local businesses.
If we stop buying stuff - then yay us, we're the good guys. But if everyone stops buying stuff, the economy collapses and millions become destitute. So how do you gradually move the global economy away from material consumption? That's not a simple task, but that's what's needed.
Mrs dB & I do what we can but in reality it doesn't barely scratch the surface, then I'll go to a site for work where they are building a private house with an under ground car park for 12 cars and a dedicated "jet lag" room and realise that even if I gave it all up and lived in a cave we'd still be pissing in the wind. Without government intervention to steer the population in the right direction we are well and truly at the mercy of whatever climate change is going to bring ☹️
Who on here is prepared to make the major lifestyle changes? Almost no one. Are you prepared to give up you car?
Giving up a car is a misnomer - your argument was about it being unsustainable. Anyway - I pretty much have - I do 1500 miles per year (in the 20y old car) and most of that is where it's impractical to do anything else, such as transporting a large amount of things or people from point to point. I purposfully haven't traded this for another EV as the embedded energy required for its creation would never outweight the fuel used on my current car even if I kept it until retirement , given my current mileage. But as for the electric car - why should we? It's sustainable. It was bought SH and will be kept until it physically dies, like to the older car - not to when they're uneconomical to repair, but until they can't be repaired, it's powered by renewable energy and was built from a large amount of recycled material. It's also very efficient - these were the reasons it was bought. My climate impact is largely drive by work, but the work I do more than offsets (by several orders of magnitude) my impact and that, as you continually focus on, was a choice. Still - I do press my management for less physical travel.
My only real concession to luxury/lifestyle with limited consideration for climate is fruit and even that, I do try, but love berries (Straw/Blue/Rasp/Black/Etc).
Why should there be an islands exception? Start of a slippery slope once you say something needs done but…..
I think that there is a balance to be struck here. There are a lot of folk suggesting that rural communities should stop travelling around - basically ending a way of life. Yet few are suggesting that rural housing (a bigger emitter of carbon than the travelling) should be prioritised for super insulation and micro-renewables before cities. Few are suggesting that the food and products we all use, many sourced from rural areas, need to keep being produced and transported to the urban areas where demand is highest. Few are suggesting that renewable energy generation should be as close to large conurbations as possible (balanced against effectiveness) to reduce transmission losses - in fact NIMBYISM would protest a wind turbine proposed in the South Downs, yet happy to scatter them in Wales and Scotland.
So yes, the UK islands and rural areas do need some thought and different approaches - but I don't agree that the transport issue is the biggest issue or easiest to solve.
Again molegrips you make my point. You wont make tbe lifestyle changes needed. You just are not prepared to do so.
This is why i have given up on this. People just pay lip service
Again molegrips you make my point. You wont make tbe lifestyle changes needed. You just are not prepared to do so.
People do not feel in a position to make the changes needed. If you want to talk about me, personally, I've hardly left the bloody house in years, so my transport footprint is pretty low. But this isn't about me, or you, it's about society.
You ignored my points. Why don't you engage properly?
There’s a study which suggests 90% of UK flights are taken by 2% of the population.
Just to clarify, that stat refers to domestic flights only, not all UK flights.
This is why i have given up on this. People just pay lip service
You included. Lots of noise but are unwilling to make the radical change needed. Why is it your so willing to shout about it but not actually do the radical change and just the frivolous stuff round the edges ?
A somewhat less confrontational and personal way to put it is that personal action is not going to work. We need government action, across countries.
Doing something on your own initiative is different to campaigning and voting for a government that forces you to do it.
There’s a study which suggests 90% of UK flights are taken by 2% of the population.
Aviation is fully aware of the issues it has and is also doing it's absolute best to greenwash.
Lots of talk of "sustainable aviation fuel", more efficient aircraft, airports running sustainable/carbon neutral operations and so on.
Regions, already struggling with huge inequality issues, are desperate not to lose their airports so they're keen on "trading" flights, asking for airlines to fly to them instead of (eg) Heathrow therefore there's no net expansion of flights, they're just "redistributing" the carbon a bit (it's all bollocks but this is regional councillors).
There are further issues that so many areas are SO dependent on tourism that to remove the cheap flights means an entire region will basically go bankrupt (this is true for much of Portugal, parts of Spain...) so no-one is actively looking at cutting flights.
Airlines want to fly, they absolutely need their planes in the air as much as possible.
Regions want/need the tourism.
People like to travel and telling British Family Gammon that they can't have their week in Costa del Chav cos of climate change isn't going to be a vote winner.
It's a really complicated one because aviation, by it's very nature, is international. UK can't levy a tax on aviation fuel cos there's a worldwide agreement that aviation doesn't pay fuel tax. Your Airbus costs the same to fill in Malaga as it does in Paris. If you tried it for domestic flights, airlines would simply fly to Paris or Brussels to fill up, ironically using a shedload more fuel to do so.
Solar street lighting on all new roads & housing developments.
All new houses to have minimum 3kW solar PV and battery storage.
Absence detection on lighting in all new homes.
Thermal storage in new homes.
More nuclear power - just get it built!!!
Reduce speed limits in residential areas to 20mph.
Limit HGV's to overnight working to reduce congestion on motorways & roads.
More nuclear power – just get it built!!!
Average build time for nuclear is 7 years and that's after you've gone through 5+ years of planning, legal challenges, protests...
Since the timeframes mean at least one change of Government (sometimes 2 or 3), there's always the issue of U-turns as well where one Gov commits to building more nuclear, the next Gov undoes all that and we're back to square one.
See Heathrow third runway for an example.
Since the timeframes mean at least one change of Government (sometimes 2 or 3),
Come on, we can easily beat 3!
A somewhat less confrontational and personal way to put it is that personal action is not going to work. We need government action, across countries.
Doing something on your own initiative is different to campaigning and voting for a government that forces you to do it.
The third alternative is to go and make the change.
Instead of squabbling over crap on the internet, spend your working like actually making a difference. Every sector of UK employment is going to have to go net zero and there is a big push for that to happen. Get on the bandwagon and be the driving force making it happen.
Alternatively we can all just complain and throw tantrums like teenagers about it's so unfair that XX isn't busy making the world better or that so-and-so organisation isn't doing enough.
More nuclear power – just get it built!!!
Utterly pointless - You'd be MUCH MUCH better off building more offshore wind right now, subsiding micro generation through tax relief and building battery storage for the grid. All of it can be started RIGHT NOW and will be online and working within 2 years and is scaleable and sustainable requiring no new technology, no new regulation and leaves behing far less legacy than nuclear and for far less cost.
Aviation is a really poor target as it's the toughest nut to crack and has one of the smallest footprints and its benefits globally are substantial from an economic POV. I do agree about SH being wasteful, but it's long haul that makes the biggest contribution. LH flights are 24% of the flight hours, but 75% of the emissions. We're working on it. SAF will help a little, but is not a solution. Hydrogen will help, but we're a long way off and contrail formation is still an issue, but one that can be solved by flying higher or lower, but to do either, you'd need to also fly slower.
I do agree that flight fuel tax should be should be charged, but its a really difficult policy to implement globally. Hell, we've been trying to get harmonised ATC (which would reduce emissions at a stroke by 10-15%) for over 40 years by allowing continuous climb and descent vectors.
Most people recognise it’s happening, and most people understand that the threat isn’t exaggerated.
People recognising it and people understanding it are two entirely separate things. It’s great that people recognise it and accept that it’s caused by anthropogenic emissions. Now we need to educate people on the how and why it is happening, why it’s such a major issue and what needs to be done to slow its progress.
Saying ‘we need radical change’ is not very useful. Figuring out how to get people to accept and actually want radical change is the real problem that needs solving.
So let’s talk about HOW to get the radical change we need? How to create the desire for change? How to get our political leaders to enact it?
We can't. We're not evolved to act in that fashion.
My point about "we don't make it" isn't a frivolous or facetious one. We've built this world, but it in no way matches the way we have evolved to think, feel and act. It's alien to us - so we literally lack the capacity to understand and make the changes required on societal levels. In fact, all of the structures and systems we've built act in opposition to us making those changes - this ensures the few who can and do make those changes will always be in the minority.
We need a disaster to unfold before our very eyes and, crucially, to be very easy to understand - like Covid. "People are dying - we need to do this". And even when people were dropping like flies we had (and still have) serious problems with taking the correct actions - within our own country and supra-nationally.
Climate and ecological disaster - the extinction level event we're currently living through - is infinitely more complex, more nuanced and we cannot see or feel it on an emotional level.
Evolution has not equipped us for this. Evolution doesn't equip any evolved animal for this - because it cannot. Evolution works at point of conception - if you haven't been able to pass on your genes, then the behaviours you exhibited or traits you carried did not get passed on (so if you had a penchant for sticking your head inside a sabre tooth tiger's mouth, it's unlikely you'd get your gametes fertilized).
We no longer intellectually advance and certainly not in response to the pressures of the modern world. Our political leaders aren't there because they are particularly adept at conveying the urgency of existential issues - they're literally a turn-off to the population. And for non-democratic states they're their by virtue of strength or inheritance.
There is NO mechanism by which we can get buy-in for the population on the level we need. Period.
70 years of strong evidence. Evidence that predicted what was going to happen. Evidence that has been borne out correct. Mass extinction of animal and plant species in a time faster than when the dinosaurs died out due to meteor strike. We're poisoning our own unborn fetuses with plastics and forever chemicals.
Multiple disasters are here right now. We're living through them. We cannot see them - it's not in our DNA.
We know that we have to reduce population size. We know we have to radically reform our economy to a wholly different consumption model. We know what actions to take and we have the technology at our disposal right now.
We've had enough to achieve the change we need for half a century. But on ALL of the measures we're failing - and not only still failing - but we're still getting worse, not better.
We. Don't. Make. It.
James Lovelock died in July this year. He was of the opinion that the human race is now in the last 1% of it's existence. I heartily agree with him.
But most of you won't even stop spunking in women / being spunked in - despite that being something you are 100% in control of and we know - for certain - that it is the right thing to do and one of the easiest things to do.
Have less kids.
But most of you won’t even stop spunking in women / being spunked in – despite that being something you are 100% in control of and we know – for certain – that it is the right thing to do and one of the easiest things to do.
Charming.
Have less kids.
Good God, you're a one trick pony, aren't you?
So far your ONLY message is "the world is doomed unless we stop having kids", despite the fact that the world will be irreparably damaged by the time your "policy" has any notable difference.
Birth rates all over the world are dropping fast - it was initially predicted that global population was expected to peak at 14bn, then 12bn, then 11bn, now less than 10bn and it keeps declining. Energy demand in western civilisation is also dropping in many regions as technology, ways of working and living alter. The birth rate problem will, eventually solve itself. Sure you can mandate, you can tax, but it's already declining fast in most of Europe. There are MUCH better ways of dealing with this rather than your crude eugenics program.
Emissions are the first port of call and getting people to emotionally, physically and financially INVEST, is the biggest, most import, most game changing thing you can do. Your post about COVID (though you completely missed the point) was that it was possible to get people to work together - the problem we have right now is that there's no way to do that - everyone works on their own, to their own standards, within their own means, or not at all. Social norms, rules, psychology and ownership are what cause seismic shifts in population dynamics which endure.
If you want easy to implement solutions for society and are looking for significant results, it has to be targeted at what governments (local and national) do best - set policy/regulation and collect & distribute money. That's it. If you want people to buy into that change, it can be taxed at a national level, but should really be implemented at a local level, that way communities can get involved and decide how best to use that money/policy to effect their own contributions. the government should only mandate that changes should be substantial, additional (to what was already planned) and be rapidly implementable (within 3 years).
Consider microgeneration, but on a village/community basis - a single, large battery store, all houses with solar, all with an allowance, but can buy more. Wind turbines on the periphery, Excessive use would be monitored by the community...etc, etc, sale/import of energy would be monitored locally and proceed/costs managed by the community with supervision by the local council and power distributor.
Get on the bandwagon and be the driving force making it happen.
Got any ideas how to do this?
But most of you won’t even stop spunking in women / being spunked in
Well aside from the fact that being an arsehole to people is just going to make them hate you and is damaging the message that I support, I have stopped making kids. We stopped at two which is a birth rate compatible with the population shrinkage you desire. So please **** off.
70 years of strong evidence.
If you think the state of environmental awareness and debate was the same 70 years ago as it is now, you're ignorant and have no idea how people work. So there's no point in either of us bothering with this further.
Get on the bandwagon and be the driving force making it happen.
Got any ideas how to do this?
I don't know what industry you work in so hard to say how you can make the change specifically. My path went from generic continuous improvement group, through to energy efficiency work (plus some retraining with a B-Eng along the way) to system design and now Project Management of large scale renewable installations across our estate. We now have a clear runway to take us from significant energy buyer from the grid to hosting and generating more renewables electricity than we consume. I.e beyond net zero
Whatever industry you work in, it will have to go through a similar transition. These transitions are often best managed from within by folk who know how your operation works.
But this path is harder than whining on social media that other people are not doing enough...
Hey, here's an easy target that I'm sure our most outspoken members can get behind, how about banning cryptocurrency?
Great idea in my opinion. Think the numbers are underestimated too due to a lot of power coming from countries that are heavily reliant on coal to create power
In fairness - we use 125m litres of petrol/diesel fuel per day for cars in the UK. So that Bitcoin sum total is about 15 days worth of fuel used - just in the UK. Kinda gives scale to the problem.
It’s one of the quickest growing causes of CO2 though and on track to become 2% of world total from Bitcoin alone according to the great book How bad are bananas.
you can't ban crypto
Small car, small house, efficient use of power? You pay less per unit.
Yet my wife’s employer charges her 3 times more to park at work because she has a 20 year old small car compared to a brand new EV SUV because they use car tax banding. I can guarantee that her 20 year old car is way ahead on environmental benefit than a new EV once you have factored in the impact of making it.
Solar street lighting on all new roads & housing developments.
All new houses to have minimum 3kW solar PV and battery storage.
Absence detection on lighting in all new homes.
Thermal storage in new homes.
Never going to happen because the construction industry has way more political lobbying power than the environmental movement ever will have. It will also required multinational agreement to all do the same thing before any meaningful impact happens. Eve if the UK became net zero tomorrow whilst the rest of the world doesn’t, then its a meaningless achievement.
Solar street lighting on all new roads & housing developments.
All new houses to have minimum 3kW solar PV and battery storage.
Absence detection on lighting in all new homes.
Thermal storage in new homes.Never going to happen because the construction industry has way more political lobbying power than the environmental movement ever will have. It will also required multinational agreement to all do the same thing before any meaningful impact happens. Eve if the UK became net zero tomorrow whilst the rest of the world doesn’t, then its a meaningless achievement.
New build homes (in Scotland at least) have to have solar panel installed on the roof. There is a loophole that the PV panels do not have to be connected to the grid however so on many (I'd suggest the majority of) new build homes any excess electricity generation is just sent to earth and wasted.
A programme of work from the various DNO's, or at least the home owners to have their PV panels connected to the grid with the appropriate g99 application would be a fairly good start.
Eve if the UK became net zero tomorrow whilst the rest of the world doesn’t, then its a meaningless achievement.
I don't think so. A lot of countries would be very interested in how we did it, because it would be a hell of an achievement. It would probably require loads of high tech to be developed and rolled out, which would be pretty valuable IP, as well as giving the companies who implemented and the civil service who managed it it highly valuable experience.
https://twitter.com/NiranjanAjit/status/1585223080929992704?t=4oBuV117tgZKVspYSb-9dg&s=19
That's a fairly bleak read to be honest...
That bitcoin stat might actually be a good thing, especially if you live in a part of the world where the temperatures are fairly moderate. Like Scotland.
A lot of the data centre energy costs is on cooling the computers down.
So if there's more data centres required then this will very likely mean that new ones will have newer technology. Like computers that can run at lower temperatures and use less power. As well as using 'free-cooling' type chillers instead of the compressor type previously used.
Another thing about higher energy costs that nobody seems to have mentioned. Is the upside of this is, it will fuel (pun intended) newer technology adoption as it's pay back now makes more economical sense. Like new boilers, new led lighting (our office is still has fluorescents).
Totally agree @tjagain:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/26/current-emissions-pledges-will-lead-to-catastrophic-climate-breakdown-says-un/blockquote >
Apart from the fact that humans have already killed 70% of animals in just the last 50 years.70% of animals. 50 years.
@molgrips:
If you think the state of environmental awareness and debate was the same 70 years ago as it is now, you’re ignorant and have no idea how people work. So there’s no point in either of us bothering with this further.
How many people need to be sounding the alarm - how many scientists - before we actually do something?
Or are you saying every single person on the planet have to be fully bought-in before governments do something?
We've known this was happening for 70 years. We've known, for certain, that this was coming and how bad it would be for the vast majority of them.
Your idea that we need "public buy-in" is bunkum. We neither need it, and aren't going to get it.
That "people get put off" when confronted harshly and strongly with the facts is just whiny nonsense - there's been 70 years of people explaining nicely, with solid evidence, what's going wrong and these people have been roundly ignored - and they are still being roundly ignored.
Do we have to kill all the animals before we ignore Ukraine and act like there's a real, existential, emergency - is 70% not enough?
"Come up with better solutions"
No. Less people. Wholesale economic change. They're the only solution.
We ain't going to solve it through our democracy. Our interconnected systems of government are incapable of fixing it - and ultimately that's down to what we are as an animal.
there’s been 70 years of people explaining nicely, with solid evidence, what’s going wrong and these people have been roundly ignored – and they are still being roundly ignored.
I only became vaguely aware of any issues in the eighties due to CFC’s. Then nothing at all in the nineties or early twenty first century. Therefore I’d propose your scientists have been spectacularly shite at getting their message across until relatively recently.
That “people get put off” when confronted harshly and strongly with the facts is just whiny nonsense
But it's happening right in front of you on this thread.
How many people need to be sounding the alarm – how many scientists – before we actually do something?
A lot is being done. Not enough, of course, but your allegation that nothing at all is being done is clearly false. You should say that not enough is being done, and that people think that is in fact enough. Then I would not be arguing.
No. Less people. Wholesale economic change. They’re the only solution.
I remain unconvinced. Vitriol does not constitute a persuasive reasoned argument. Do better.
No. Less people. Wholesale economic change. They’re the only solution.
We ain’t going to solve it through our democracy. Our interconnected systems of government are incapable of fixing it – and ultimately that’s down to what we are as an animal.
Totally agree. We're doomed. May as well enjoy the ride out.
A purely pragmatic and reasonably simple to implement eco solution for (our) society would be to bomb all the developing nations back to the stone-age then pull up the drawbridge on immigration before the billions of refugees arrive here looking to get their greedy mits on our resources. I'm not talking about bombing people. that would be mean. But infrastructure etc to force most of the planet back into hunter-gatherer lifestyles whilst we king it up in luxury. If the western birth-rate is indeed going down then we'd eventually become less populace ourselves but at an agreeable steady decline. Eventually each person in the UK could live in his own stately home. We could use coal to heat them. Granted we wouldn't have iPads and Uber Eats but so what, it would be a splendid romantic lifestyle like living in the 19th century but with all the art, music and literature made right up to the late 1990's/early 2000's... (after which nothing else decent was made).
Maybe it's going to kick off nuclear style soon anyway, that would help I imagine. The planet will recover eventually so who cares.
Unfortunately I'm with the cynics. Endless pursuit of economic growth at any cost, growing populations living more western consumerist lifestyles and no indication of governments/societies moving in another direction all point to there only being one outcome. But hopefully clever people will save us so we can keep enjoying our lives of relative luxury.
It's hard not to get defeatist about the bigger picture. Yay I recycled my yoghurt pot and walked to the shop! I'm doing my bit! Oh look Russia just destroyed a country in 6 months. Oh god what's the point 🤦
@chevychase do you have an opinion on the huge impact bitcoin alone has on global emissions, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
Of course we could say "Why bother?"
Quite possibly we are buggered anyway as human nature is such that we won't make the sacrifices needed. No government will do it as that will be a certain vote loser and there will always be a big enough chunk of any population that won't cope with any changes. Eg Removing private vehicles hammers the rural dweller,the holiday industry and our commuter society. Hard choices. I would just ban all holiday, business and luxury good flights. I would reduce electricty consumption by banning all electronic communications unless a essential need was proved. Minimal imported food and no luxuries. We don't need pineapples. Ban fast food. Save the rain forest etc and help the health of the nation as well as our pockets. Upset you? Of course, I get that but we all have our own priorities. And that is why we are stuffed.
And.... do we see China, India etc doing the same thing. Nope. Will they listen? Nope.
Lets have no more suspension bikes. Think of the savings.
@chevychase do you have an opinion on the huge impact bitcoin alone has on global emissions, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.
Fewer people to spend it NOW!
@squirrelking:
do you have an opinion on the huge impact bitcoin alone has on global emissions, I’d love to hear your thoughts on it
Funny you should ask. I work in banking and I'm currently involved in measuring my particular financial institution's carbon footprint.
It is quite surprisingly considerable.
No. Much more than that.
Multiply that by all the buildings, ATMs, POS, debit and credit systems, mining, transportation, processing centres. Add in un-ethical financing decisions - the loan book of our banking system is estimated to be 700 times more polluting than the (hugely energy intensive) banking system itself.
To me it seems reasonable that we could find a low-energy replacement to this system, which doesn't require dirty transportation system, ore mining, multiple buildings (and their construction materials), is resilient and distributed and puts the power back in the hands of the people and away from corrupt governments.
I notice, of course, that you specifically chose bitcoin for your transparently weak and pathetic attack. But there are plenty of competinmg crypto currencies out there with a thousandth of the energy footprint - and, like bitcoin, they don't have all of the other energy infrastructure to go with them that traditional banking does.
It's not a hill I intend to die on though. What would make a much bigger dent in not just carbon emissions - but whole lifecycle consumption reduction (which, ultimately, is what the planet would need) - is having a lot less screaming bairns about.
IQ is on a normal distribution curve. Perhaps we should simply execute from the 50th percentile and below. There are a few obvious candidates I can think of.
Thanos would approve. 🙂
Ah right, so you're just a straight up hypocrite.
Get tae **** with your genocidal doom cult shite and your assumed Patrick Bateman air of superiority, you're nothing but another self-interested **** that likes to pretend their shit doesn't remotely stink and preaches on high.
And when you get there, **** right off.
I’d cull those with low emotional intelligence first tbh. Thanos wouldn’t approve because you’re advocating reducing one life form. He wanted fifty percent of all life gone. He’d think you were half arsing it.
@squirrelking:
Ah right, so you’re just a straight up hypocrite.
Absolutely not. I would hate for you to be under the impression that I've no evidence to back me up.
Ethereum, for example (look at the graph) - is 26 times less energy consumptive per transaction than Paypal!
Or 9,400 times less energy consumptive than Netflix.
Or 24,000 times less energy consumptive than gold mining (which also scars the planet and (lest we forget) has quite a high human toll too.
Or, wait for it, 24,400 times less energy consumptive than YouTube!
You like Youtube, right? You watch a bit of that don't you? 🙂
You're 100% right. Bitcoin eats the energy. But if we can replace the entire hugely consumptive banking system with a low-energy alternative then it's not only the right thing to do environmentally, it's the moral thing to do.
If you have a pipe, I advise you to stick that in it - but absolutely don't set light to it. Maybe put your pipe on your compost heap and then eventually use it to grow some vegetables with your reclaimed water.
You do have a compost heap, don't you?
This thread has gone really bad from what was probably a good intention. Step back and be nice? Speaking as someone who has had a warning, it was justified!
Thanos wouldn’t approve because you’re advocating reducing one life form. He wanted fifty percent of all life gone. He’d think you were half arsing it.
I'd be laughing my arse off at this but for one fact:
We've already done that ourselves haven't we.
In fact - we've gone much further than Thanos and killed 70% of all animal life on earth in the last 50 years alone.
We're in the middle of a mass extinction, caused by humans, and we don't give a single shit about the animal life we've destroyed...