Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

[Bazzer]

It may not be explicitly stated in those planning applications, but it will be mandated by building regs anyhow.

Correct.
Having finally almost reached the conclusion of 5 months of building work on our house, what is shown on the planning applications does not reflect what lies beneath the visible structure.

 

[mudsticks]

Correct.
Having finally almost reached the conclusion of 5 months of building work on our house, what is shown on the planning applications does not reflect what lies beneath the visible structure.

Yup, planning apps are mainly about visual impact, occupancy, community impact and so on.

And in the case of agricultural dwellings seeing that financial and functional need criteria are met too.

Building control are the ones who oversee stuff like insulation, sound construction techniques, elf and safety and so on.

 

[Wobblers]

I understand that processes such as fusion may be of help for clean power generation in the future, and that there could be other spin offs.
i don't have a problem with resources going on research as such.

But it's this attitude that there will be some amazing new tech that will come along and save us all from climate disaster at the eleventh hour, that is a part of the larger problem, it can deflect us from doing what is possible and achievable now.

In agriculture for instance we could greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and their products, often with fairly straightforward methodologies, and understanding of natural systems already existing that harvest energy from sunlight.
.
It doesn't have to be such an enormous energy user at all, it's just ended up that way, mainly through extractive capitalism and short termism..

Completely agree about bank bailouts, I'm no cheerleader for any of that. There are many better things that that money could and should have been spent on, but that's another subject in itself.

But we also need to look at who owns the new energy generating tech who will get to control and profit from it, who loses out.??

Ideally it would be like Iceland with their geothermal heating going to nearly all households.

But given the relatively high cost of developing (and running??) fusion there is a danger thats perhaps not so likely - I don't know.

However the socio-politics of high tech and who owns benefits from it is important, to scrutinise, as well as the nature of the technology itself.

I'm not saying that fusion will magically get us out of this hole. That's why I said we need to be doing all the boring things too. In fact, technological solutions aren't the answer - they can help but only go so far. As does insulation, and renewables, and less energy intensive agriculture. That's because the real problem lies in society. It lies in the fact that we expect - indeed demand - exponential growth, that we be wealthier tomorrow than we were today. No system, no matter how big, can sustain unlimited growth indefinitely. The long term survival of this civilisation we're in - perhaps even the medium term survival - requires us to turn our backs on the promise of even more jam tomorrow. But try telling people that they can't be better off tomorrow! No politician will ever say such truths: they'd be promptly voted out of office (or worse!). Those few in the green movement who openly say such things are widely derided, with the inevitable result that few will even acknowledge this.

This makes me pessimistic about the future. The longer we delay in the wholesale transformation of our social and above all economic systems the harder it will get - and the worse the inevitable crash will be when we finally breach a critical threshold, whether that be the destabilisation of polar methane hydrates or exhaustion of essential resources. But no one wants to listen, and putting solar panels on roofs or even building umpteen fantastic fusion power stations will at best put off that evil day.

 

[albion]

Well fusion and limitless energy has its own problems. If it ever became quick and easy you could then fully colonize the north pole.
And the whole of India can have air conditioning.

So, even being CO2 free might have its own problems. Fusion itself might be global warming in a nutshell.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I quite agree more needs to be done re building control and retroffiting of insulation and other energy saving measures on both new dwelling and business premises.
.
That has all been the case for many decades. The building industry has on the whole lobbied for, and got away with the bare minimum up til now.

But insulation standards and other building regulation measures on new builds has been tightened up a lot on in the last couple of years..

It may not be explicitly stated in those planning applications, but it will be mandated by building regs anyhow.

I'm particularly up on all this right now as we are starting a new build dwelling this coming year - and it will (quite rightly) have to come up to a high spec in terms of energy conservation / insulation etc.

It's a bit late in the game, but things are changing.

The new-build (Devonshire homes) Foodie Towers is A-rated for efficiency and has Solar. So it is being done in some places, but by no means universal sadly. The insulation is amazing.

 

[albion]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/14/get-bus-gus/

Very similar to France paying people €4000 to scrap their car for an electric bike.
Just imagine the future if we did both.

 

[mudsticks]

The new-build (Devonshire homes) Foodie Towers is A-rated for efficiency and has Solar. So it is being done in some places, but by no means universal sadly. The insulation is amazing.

Excellent

As far as I'm aware the same building regs regarding insulation, are applied nationally.

They've just been ramped up in the last year or so.

Although desirable, solar installations are not mandatory, but the sustainability of heating systems is scrutinised.

It seems from talking to people who already have these super insulated houses, that they barely need to put the heating on anyway.


With climate change already showing its teeth here, it's going to be necessary to think seriously about some windows also having shutters to keep the extreme summertime heat out.

 

[mudsticks]

I'm not saying that fusion will magically get us out of this hole. That's why I said we need to be doing all the boring things too. In fact, technological solutions aren't the answer - they can help but only go so far. As does insulation, and renewables, and less energy intensive agriculture. That's because the real problem lies in society. It lies in the fact that we expect - indeed demand - exponential growth, that we be wealthier tomorrow than we were today. No system, no matter how big, can sustain unlimited growth indefinitely. The long term survival of this civilisation we're in - perhaps even the medium term survival - requires us to turn our backs on the promise of even more jam tomorrow. But try telling people that they can't be better off tomorrow! No politician will ever say such truths: they'd be promptly voted out of office (or worse!). Those few in the green movement who openly say such things are widely derided, with the inevitable result that few will even acknowledge this.

This makes me pessimistic about the future. The longer we delay in the wholesale transformation of our social and above all economic systems the harder it will get - and the worse the inevitable crash will be when we finally breach a critical threshold, whether that be the destabilisation of polar methane hydrates or exhaustion of essential resources. But no one wants to listen, and putting solar panels on roofs or even building umpteen fantastic fusion power stations will at best put off that evil day.

"Those few in the green movement who openly say such things are widely derided, with the inevitable result that few will even acknowledge this."

Tell me about it .

Having been in the 'green movement' for decades I'm well aware of this problem of suggesting we have to limit growth, and the push back against it
..

However less or no growth of the capitalism variety , doesn't have to equate to unpleasant life.

If we stopped using ££ and competition and aggression based 'power' as a marker for success and instead concentrated on human wellbeing, and preserving the natural abundance of our resources we'd be ok.

But that didn't seem to be a popular model for some reason 🤔.


Even in what is a capitalism driven system which pushes back against such things, some, and now far more of us are managing to 'live differently'

Using far less resources to create lives and working environments that are far less exploitative.

Shame more didn't come on board earlier,

But yeah for years we've been derided as eco- hippy, social justice warrioring tree huggers.

As if those were bad things 🙄

 

[albion]

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/woman-ordered-remove-unlawful-solar-7910523

Lady deserves a medal. She can fill that vacancy in the Lords as far as I am concerned.

 

[matticus]

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/woman-ordered-remove-unlawful-solar-7910523

Lady deserves a medal. She can fill that vacancy in the Lords as far as I am concerned.

Old roof preservation trumps preservation of planet.

 

[BoldonLad]

I'm not saying that fusion will magically get us out of this hole. That's why I said we need to be doing all the boring things too. In fact, technological solutions aren't the answer - they can help but only go so far. As does insulation, and renewables, and less energy intensive agriculture. That's because the real problem lies in society. It lies in the fact that we expect - indeed demand - exponential growth, that we be wealthier tomorrow than we were today. No system, no matter how big, can sustain unlimited growth indefinitely. The long term survival of this civilisation we're in - perhaps even the medium term survival - requires us to turn our backs on the promise of even more jam tomorrow. But try telling people that they can't be better off tomorrow! No politician will ever say such truths: they'd be promptly voted out of office (or worse!). Those few in the green movement who openly say such things are widely derided, with the inevitable result that few will even acknowledge this.

This makes me pessimistic about the future. The longer we delay in the wholesale transformation of our social and above all economic systems the harder it will get - and the worse the inevitable crash will be when we finally breach a critical threshold, whether that be the destabilisation of polar methane hydrates or exhaustion of essential resources. But no one wants to listen, and putting solar panels on roofs or even building umpteen fantastic fusion power stations will at best put off that evil day.

Does the fact that there are a lot of us, and, that too is increasing exponentially, have bearing on the problem?

 

[albion]

https://hydrogen-central.com/a-breakneck-growth-pivot-nears-green-hydrogen/

Renewable demand will find it hard to keep up it says. There is also a push in Germany to switch none electrified train lines to hydrogen.

 

[mudsticks]

Does the fact that there are a lot of us, and, that too is increasing exponentially, have bearing on the problem?

Birth rate is declining in many westernised countries..

Just as well really as we are the worst polluters and consumers of resources.

It's declining sharply in countries where women are better educated, have more equality, and social security so they're not dependent on any one else for survival, and where they have free access to birth control .

And at the end of the day it's not number of people so much as the amount they consume and pollute.

 

[BoldonLad]

Birth rate is declining in many westernised countries..

Just as well really as we are the worst polluters and consumers of resources.

It's declining sharply in countries where women are better educated, have more equality, and social security so they're not dependent on any one else for survival, and where they have free access to birth control .

And at the end of the day it's not number of people so much as the amount they consume and pollute.

True, of the first bolded section, and, I applaud that, as you know, because, you have said it before, and, I have agreed before.

Can't say I agree with the second bolded statement, even if the consumption and pollution per had is reduced, then, clearly, it is still true that more people will consume and polite more.

 

[matticus]

Can't say I agree with the second bolded statement, even if the consumption and pollution per had is reduced, then, clearly, it is still true that more people will consume and polite more.

Er ... surely that's an It Depends thing?!? Population increase at 5%/annum, CO2/head decreased at 6%/annum, all is good.
Opposite way round => bad !

We know that average USAnian uses 100s of times the resources of the average world citizen in 1922; so it is certainly possible to reverse our current trend. We just need the will - or perhaps more importantly, the leadership.