qigong chimp
Settler of gobby hash.
Seriously?
What planet are you on!?
Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?
- Thread starter Banderill
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
What planet are you on!?
matticus
Guru
Well done The Times for making this their whole p3 story on Saturday! 👏
(with absolutely no mention of pesky pollution or climate change):
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/transpo...irlines-and-win-1-million-air-miles-z8wcjh0wk
(with absolutely no mention of pesky pollution or climate change):
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/transpo...irlines-and-win-1-million-air-miles-z8wcjh0wk
Rusty Nails
Country Member
Just reading that article is so depressing but it really makes me wonder if, at an individual level, I can put any blame on ordinary members of the public (including me) who might be tempted to just say "sod it" and continue to fly on holiday, drive to the shops/work/day-trips and put up the thermostat on the cold winter nights ahead.
The political leaders of major countries in fossil fuel use did not bother attending COP29 (whereas we flew 470 people out there) and continue on their merry way fracking, mining, drilling and chopping down trees (especially in the new Trump era), and selling more cars (even the electric type use a lot of energy in their fuelling and manufacture), while we in the UK are on guilt trip over how we can improve on our <1% consumption of the world's resources. I know that per capita our energy usage is high, and would be higher if we hadn't outsourced a lot of our manufacturing overseas, so we have scope, and probably a moral duty, to improve but in reality without other major countries making similar progress we have as much impact on world energy saving as a gnat's fart in a hurricane.
Whether I feel a bit more smug about improving my contribution to energy saving or say "sod this" and switch the thermostat up, neither option will make any meaningful difference without those major countries...and that is what is really holding the world back.
mjr
Active Member
Al Gore calls for reform of COP climate process | Euronews – https://www.euronews.com/2024/11/15/al-gore-calls-for-reform-of-cop-climate-process
I agree that it being hosted in oil states so often doesn't seem to be helping, in so many ways.
I agree that it being hosted in oil states so often doesn't seem to be helping, in so many ways.
matticus
Guru
The answer is: what if EVERYONE in the world thought this way?
(Even if only the US carried on regardless, if the REST of humanity does "the right thing" then we will be helping our grandchildren - and grandchildren everywhere - have nicer lives.)
spen666
Well-Known Member
The answer is: what if EVERYONE in the world thought this way?
(Even if only the US carried on regardless, if the REST of humanity does "the right thing" then we will be helping our grandchildren - and grandchildren everywhere - have nicer lives.)
It depends on how you view things.
If we stop using fossil fuels and the rest of the world don't, then economically, we will be likely worse off and our children and grandchildren will suffer a worse standard of living than we do ( financially and materially) because as a nation we are much less competitive than other countries.
There is a balance to be struck, and we would all like every country to be equally environmentally concerned, but the reality is that is not going to happen.
In some ways its a bit like the argument that we should be a pacifist nation and scrap our armies etc. despite others not doing so.
The big question is how do we bring other nations along the green agenda, and how do we persuade people to reduce / stop their own personal use and consumption of fossil fuels.
For example despite the green agenda, people are taking more holidays abroad than ever before. Albeit, shorter breaks, people are still flying more each year, even if not every trip is abroad. Unless they are cycling or walking to their destinations, then they are probably using using fossil fuels to get to their destinations
People may well support the green agenda, until it comes to doing things that affect their lifestyle I'm not sure how you persuade people to act to their own detriment when others ignore this
(Even if only the US carried on regardless, if the REST of humanity does "the right thing" then we will be helping our grandchildren - and grandchildren everywhere - have nicer lives.)
It depends on how you view things.
If we stop using fossil fuels and the rest of the world don't, then economically, we will be likely worse off and our children and grandchildren will suffer a worse standard of living than we do ( financially and materially) because as a nation we are much less competitive than other countries.
There is a balance to be struck, and we would all like every country to be equally environmentally concerned, but the reality is that is not going to happen.
In some ways its a bit like the argument that we should be a pacifist nation and scrap our armies etc. despite others not doing so.
The big question is how do we bring other nations along the green agenda, and how do we persuade people to reduce / stop their own personal use and consumption of fossil fuels.
For example despite the green agenda, people are taking more holidays abroad than ever before. Albeit, shorter breaks, people are still flying more each year, even if not every trip is abroad. Unless they are cycling or walking to their destinations, then they are probably using using fossil fuels to get to their destinations
This above being a direct a quote from ABTA https://tinyurl.com/29coqtgo
People may well support the green agenda, until it comes to doing things that affect their lifestyle I'm not sure how you persuade people to act to their own detriment when others ignore this
The Crofted Crest
Active Member
Prisoner's dilemma, hey.
mjr
Active Member
Political leaders can't win with you, can they? Either they "did not bother" or they flew too many people out there. And either way, it's a distraction from action. It doesn't really matter how many people were sent. What matters is what countries do.
So in one way you're right to think we need to take other countries with us in this war on waste and as many as possible, but it all helps and we don't need to take everyone with us. If Trump wants to go fondle himself for four years, that's the USA's choice and hopefully we can persuade them to make smarter decisions later, but one certainty is that we can't take any other countries with us on the carbon-lowering journey if we don't go on it either!
I don't get this focus on whether or not to turn the thermostat up. You should be warm enough when suitably dressed for the activity (so big jumper on if sitting around, less if active). It's far better to insulate your home reasonably well and replace any remaining dumb thermostats with smarter heating controls. Even if it doesn't make a meaningful difference to the state of the planet for the next generation, it should lower the ongoing running costs of your heating. Insulation and controls are sometimes the only upgrades with a decently fast payback.
mjr
Active Member
That's not true if we are an early enough adopter to be making and selling a lot of the products and services needed to help others stop using fossil fuels. We know that the fossils will run out eventually so better we're among the experts than having to pay the experts later.
I'm pretty sure there are other non-fossil-fuelled transport options than cycling or walking! Also, not all fossil fuel transport is equally bad: there's a wide range of pollution per person there, with flying being among the worst (and private planes the worst).
Firstly, we need to stop pretending that all ecological choices are detrimental. Are you really going to enjoy a rail-connected holiday destination less than one that most people fly to?
But ultimately, it's probably going to get to the point where politicians feel they have no option other than to tax the harmful options more. There will be much whining and wailing when they do, but I suspect they might find a way to tax polluters who don't vote in their elections, so it sticks.
icowden
Squire
Of course not, but if you are limited to 7 days holiday are you going to spend 28 hours going to the South of France on a train or 4 hours by air? Obviously you go by air.
Rail is great, but there are limits. I had a lovely holiday to Switzerland with my wife we flew to Zurich and then stayed in three different locations travelling by train. Of course you can get there from the UK by train - but it takes 17 hours.
Most people choose to go somewhere warm on holiday, and by train that's going to take a while. Even going to Cornwall it's quicker to fly or drive than to take the train or bus.
matticus
Guru
There are several practical and pragmatic answers to your post already, but I'll give you a different angle:
How about just doing the right thing?
Worth trying? Maybe just in this one case Spen, eh?
Rusty Nails
Country Member
I don't really do "what ifs". The "rest of humanity" doesn't think this way, and unless a much, much larger number of people make significant changes to their way of living we are just going to plod along. It is not just down to the US, and under Trump things will get worse, but it needs a concerted example from leaders of major world polluters to persuade their people and others to instigate the personal changes that they see these countries making as well.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
That was me being cynical about the amount of air miles and fossil fuel being expended to persuade the world to use less fossil fuels. No sacrifice, apparently, is too hard for many in politics not to enjoy their foreign travel.
The rest of my post is also an exercise in cynicism rather than wishful thinking.
I am not the type to sit around the house in t-shirt and shorts in mid-winter, but thanks for the lecture in the obvious.
Last edited:
