Climate Change Thread

[Sandstorm]

The main problem is that the vast majority of people just don’t give a shit, even well educated wealthy people who have no excuses.

As a example that does my head in I walked down my street tonight and counted 5 cars in a row parked up with their engines on talking away on their phones. I know it’s a tiny thing in the scheme of things, but it drives me nuts.

The UK is small fry in the scheme of things. Until China, India, USA, Russia can change and develop and environmental conscience we are all fucked. It doesn’t matter if we have zero output.

I’m not saying we should give up and do nothing our end fwiw.

Your attitude sux. Everyone has to reduce their output. It all counts.

[Biffer]

Two things everyone needs to do.

Change your travel - find ways to use less carbon

Change your diet - eat less meat.

If you don't do both if these, you're always going to be part of the problem. It's not a choice where you can do one but not the other.

After that, there are larger societal interventions around energy production, concrete and transport which have to be done by government.

But if you don't change your diet, we're fucked.

[Torquemada 1420]

THREE things everyone needs to do.

Change your travel - find ways to use less carbon

Change your diet - eat less meat.

STOP BREEDING LIKE FLIES

If you don't do both if these, you're always going to be part of the problem. It's not a choice where you can do one but not the other.

After that, there are larger societal interventions around energy production, concrete and transport which have to be done by government.

But if you don't change your diet, we're fucked.

[JM2K6]

Telling people to solve climate change by not doing one of the things we're built to do, that is a core biological impulse for pretty much all life on this planet, is a non-starter.

What individuals are able to do is fucking irrelevant compared to what corporations are able to do, anyway.

[Raggs]

Energy production and transport are the 2 biggest contributors I believe.

Both of which can be largely improved with nuclear and green energy, and electric vehicles.

In truth though, I suspect the way we get out of this realistically, is through carbon capture technology, since it actively reduces the amounts, rather than just slowing output.

Changing how China etc operates, and the USA for that matter, is not going to be quick or easy, and they contribute about 43% between them.

Putting the brakes on that is not going to work. So we need to hope we can use other methods.

That's absolutely not to say we shouldn't continue to do our part, since every little definitely helps, but as a global problem, it needs a much larger solution.

[Biffer]

STOP BREEDING LIKE FLIES

This is a myth.

The top 1% (that’s 75 million or so) produce more CO2 than the bottom 50% ( 3,750 million or so).

If we took the bottom one billion people off the planet, it would hardly affect climate change as a problem at all.

Lifestyle is a far bigger problem than numbers.

The population argument is a salve for rich people in developed countries that lets people feel ok about shrugging their shoulders and pretending it’s not them that’s the problem.

If you wanted to do something about overpopulation you’d be campaigning for improved education for girls in developing nations.

[Sandstorm]

Elon Musk #1: "Look at my new battery Gigafactory, it is the clean future we're all looking for"
Elon Musk #2: "Check out my sexy new rocket, so powerful!"

Corporations and the selfish 1% are where the biggest changes have to happen.

[Torquemada 1420]

STOP BREEDING LIKE FLIES

This is a myth.

The top 1% (that’s 75 million or so) produce more CO2 than the bottom 50% ( 3,750 million or so).

If we took the bottom one billion people off the planet, it would hardly affect climate change as a problem at all.

Lifestyle is a far bigger problem than numbers.

The population argument is a salve for rich people in developed countries that lets people feel ok about shrugging their shoulders and pretending it’s not them that’s the problem.

If you wanted to do something about overpopulation you’d be campaigning for improved education for girls in developing nations.

No. It's not a myth. Because the desired lifestyle trajectory for the bottom sections is to move upwards and every tier above them causes more pollution. You are making the mistake of assuming you can keep
all those people in poverty which, I grant, is what keeps the top 1% in the top 1% and so they'll be working hard on the status quo.

Besides, there are other issues associated with an over populated planet: space being one of them.

If I could do something about over population, I'd arrange for all religious people (esp Catholics and fundamental Islamists) to be erased.

[Slick]

STOP BREEDING LIKE FLIES

This is a myth.

The top 1% (that’s 75 million or so) produce more CO2 than the bottom 50% ( 3,750 million or so).

If we took the bottom one billion people off the planet, it would hardly affect climate change as a problem at all.

Lifestyle is a far bigger problem than numbers.

The population argument is a salve for rich people in developed countries that lets people feel ok about shrugging their shoulders and pretending it’s not them that’s the problem.

If you wanted to do something about overpopulation you’d be campaigning for improved education for girls in developing nations.

No. It's not a myth. Because the desired lifestyle trajectory for the bottom sections is to move upwards and every tier above them causes more pollution. You are making the mistake of assuming you can keep
all those people in poverty which, I grant, is what keeps the top 1% in the top 1% and so they'll be working hard on the status quo.

Besides, there are other issues associated with an over populated planet: space being one of them.

Yup, look at Africa, you have 100’s of millions of people moving to middle class consumer status over the next few years

[Biffer]

STOP BREEDING LIKE FLIES

This is a myth.

The top 1% (that’s 75 million or so) produce more CO2 than the bottom 50% ( 3,750 million or so).

If we took the bottom one billion people off the planet, it would hardly affect climate change as a problem at all.

Lifestyle is a far bigger problem than numbers.

The population argument is a salve for rich people in developed countries that lets people feel ok about shrugging their shoulders and pretending it’s not them that’s the problem.

If you wanted to do something about overpopulation you’d be campaigning for improved education for girls in developing nations.

No. It's not a myth. Because the desired lifestyle trajectory for the bottom sections is to move upwards and every tier above them causes more pollution. You are making the mistake of assuming you can keep
all those people in poverty which, I grant, is what keeps the top 1% in the top 1% and so they'll be working hard on the status quo.

Besides, there are other issues associated with an over populated planet: space being one of them.

If I could do something about over population, I'd arrange for all religious people (esp Catholics and fundamental Islamists) to be erased.

So the people at the top need to change what an affluent lifestyle looks like. The aspiration is the top 10%. If we can make that lifestyle low carbon then all of the people in Africa who are aspirational end up aspiring to a low carbon way of living.

The population argument is just an excuse for you to do nothing. Because even if you stopped population growth tomorrow, there'd still be seven billion people aspiring to the lifestyle of the other half a billion or so. You know, the high carbon one.

[Biffer]

BTW, if you have assets of more than £600k, you're in the 1%.

That includes your house, pension funds etc.

In terms of income, it's around £25k annually.

[Torquemada 1420]

So the people at the top need to change what an affluent lifestyle looks like. The aspiration is the top 10%. If we can make that lifestyle low carbon then all of the people in Africa who are aspirational end up aspiring to a low carbon way of living.

The population argument is just an excuse for you to do nothing. Because even if you stopped population growth tomorrow, there'd still be seven billion people aspiring to the lifestyle of the other half a billion or so. You know, the high carbon one.

It's too late. That genie is out of the bottle. Even if they all became hippies and lives in teepees in Wales, a new 1% would simply replace them. The aspirational bar is set. Tragically the only solution is for nature to create a mass extermination event of humans.

[Biffer]

So the people at the top need to change what an affluent lifestyle looks like. The aspiration is the top 10%. If we can make that lifestyle low carbon then all of the people in Africa who are aspirational end up aspiring to a low carbon way of living.

The population argument is just an excuse for you to do nothing. Because even if you stopped population growth tomorrow, there'd still be seven billion people aspiring to the lifestyle of the other half a billion or so. You know, the high carbon one.

It's too late. That genie is out of the bottle. Even if they all became hippies and lives in teepees in Wales, a new 1% would simply replace them. The aspirational bar is set. Tragically the only solution is for nature to create a mass extermination event of humans.

OK, so you've fully accepted the excuse and are going to carry on regardless. You've bought into the fuck everyone else I'll do what I like attitude and have justified it to yourself by blaming poor brown people. Well done you.

[Ymx]

The main problem is that the vast majority of people just don’t give a shit, even well educated wealthy people who have no excuses.

As a example that does my head in I walked down my street tonight and counted 5 cars in a row parked up with their engines on talking away on their phones. I know it’s a tiny thing in the scheme of things, but it drives me nuts.

The UK is small fry in the scheme of things. Until China, India, USA, Russia can change and develop and environmental conscience we are all fucked. It doesn’t matter if we have zero output.

I’m not saying we should give up and do nothing our end fwiw.

Your attitude sux. Everyone has to reduce their output. It all counts.

You’ve clearly or wilfully ignored my last sentence then.

[Slick]

Two things everyone needs to do.

Change your travel - find ways to use less carbon

Change your diet - eat less meat.

If you don't do both if these, you're always going to be part of the problem. It's not a choice where you can do one but not the other.

After that, there are larger societal interventions around energy production, concrete and transport which have to be done by government.

But if you don't change your diet, we're fucked.

Where does fish and seafood come in this? I barely eat any meat anyway, maybe once a month at someone elses house, but fish is quite prominent in my diet.

[Biffer]

Elon Musk #1: "Look at my new battery Gigafactory, it is the clean future we're all looking for"
Elon Musk #2: "Check out my sexy new rocket, so powerful!"

Corporations and the selfish 1% are where the biggest changes have to happen.

You might need to consider whether, in Global terms, you're part of the one percent. It's a very demographic to what we think of as the one percent in domestic terms in a lot of countries.

[JM2K6]

STOP BREEDING LIKE FLIES

This is a myth.

The top 1% (that’s 75 million or so) produce more CO2 than the bottom 50% ( 3,750 million or so).

If we took the bottom one billion people off the planet, it would hardly affect climate change as a problem at all.

Lifestyle is a far bigger problem than numbers.

The population argument is a salve for rich people in developed countries that lets people feel ok about shrugging their shoulders and pretending it’s not them that’s the problem.

If you wanted to do something about overpopulation you’d be campaigning for improved education for girls in developing nations.

No. It's not a myth. Because the desired lifestyle trajectory for the bottom sections is to move upwards and every tier above them causes more pollution. You are making the mistake of assuming you can keep
all those people in poverty which, I grant, is what keeps the top 1% in the top 1% and so they'll be working hard on the status quo.

Besides, there are other issues associated with an over populated planet: space being one of them.

If I could do something about over population, I'd arrange for all religious people (esp Catholics and fundamental Islamists) to be erased.

Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.

[Marylandolorian]

The UK is small fry in the scheme of things. Until China, India, USA, Russia can change and develop and environmental conscience we are all fucked. It doesn’t matter if we have zero output.

I’m not saying we should give up and do nothing our end fwiw.

Your attitude sux. Everyone has to reduce their output. It all counts.

You’ve clearly or wilfully ignored my last sentence then.

Don’t forget the big polluters such as INEOS, BP and dozens of other smaller gaz&oil companies,

Pollution index by countries
https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankin ... ountry.jsp

I don’t know if it has been mentioned, but agriculture is the 2nd most polluting industry.

[Torquemada 1420]

Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.

Not sure if that's a interstellar quip or whether you are seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively over crowded with humans?

[Torquemada 1420]

OK, so you've fully accepted the excuse and are going to carry on regardless. You've bought into the fuck everyone else I'll do what I like attitude and have justified it to yourself by blaming poor brown people. Well done you.

Get a grip. My Frontline Greenpeace membership no is 0001. I'd hope you could extrapolate from that that what you are leaping to above in righteous indignation is bollox.

[fishfoodie]

This is a myth.

The top 1% (that’s 75 million or so) produce more CO2 than the bottom 50% ( 3,750 million or so).

If we took the bottom one billion people off the planet, it would hardly affect climate change as a problem at all.

Lifestyle is a far bigger problem than numbers.

The population argument is a salve for rich people in developed countries that lets people feel ok about shrugging their shoulders and pretending it’s not them that’s the problem.

If you wanted to do something about overpopulation you’d be campaigning for improved education for girls in developing nations.

No. It's not a myth. Because the desired lifestyle trajectory for the bottom sections is to move upwards and every tier above them causes more pollution. You are making the mistake of assuming you can keep
all those people in poverty which, I grant, is what keeps the top 1% in the top 1% and so they'll be working hard on the status quo.

Besides, there are other issues associated with an over populated planet: space being one of them.

If I could do something about over population, I'd arrange for all religious people (esp Catholics and fundamental Islamists) to be erased.

Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.

Not if the population; & more importantly the food producing land; was spread evenly around the planet; but it isn't.

The vast majority of humanity is densely populated around coasts, & with rising sea levels, that means that the majority of humanity's living space is under threat.

[Biffer]

OK, so you've fully accepted the excuse and are going to carry on regardless. You've bought into the fuck everyone else I'll do what I like attitude and have justified it to yourself by blaming poor brown people. Well done you.

Get a grip. My Frontline Greenpeace membership no is 0001. I'd hope you could extrapolate from that that what you are leaping to above in righteous indignation is bollox.

Well, that's obviously bollocks. Carry on pissing on your kids.

[JM2K6]

Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.

Not sure if that's a interstellar quip or whether you are seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively over crowded with humans?

I'm seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively overcrowded with humans. It's not backed up by the evidence. The problem is overconsumption, not overcrowding, and there's plenty of doubt over whether overpopulation is any kind of real problem. As it is, actual physical space is not hard to find.

[JM2K6]

No. It's not a myth. Because the desired lifestyle trajectory for the bottom sections is to move upwards and every tier above them causes more pollution. You are making the mistake of assuming you can keep
all those people in poverty which, I grant, is what keeps the top 1% in the top 1% and so they'll be working hard on the status quo.

Besides, there are other issues associated with an over populated planet: space being one of them.

If I could do something about over population, I'd arrange for all religious people (esp Catholics and fundamental Islamists) to be erased.

Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.

Not if the population; & more importantly the food producing land; was spread evenly around the planet; but it isn't.

The vast majority of humanity is densely populated around coasts, & with rising sea levels, that means that the majority of humanity's living space is under threat.

Yes, but there's a difference between "where humanity has traditionally settled" and "where's livable for humanity". Actual space where humans can live? Really not in short supply. How we're going to handle forced migration due to climate change? Totally different question.

[fishfoodie]

Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.

Not if the population; & more importantly the food producing land; was spread evenly around the planet; but it isn't.

The vast majority of humanity is densely populated around coasts, & with rising sea levels, that means that the majority of humanity's living space is under threat.

Yes, but there's a difference between "where humanity has traditionally settled" and "where's livable for humanity". Actual space where humans can live? Really not in short supply. How we're going to handle forced migration due to climate change? Totally different question.

And as we've seen in the last decade or two, immigration isn't exactly a simple matter, Politically speaking !

Who's going to sign up to accept the population of Pacific Islands, that are rapidly going underwater in the next couple of decades ?

And then in the slightly longer term; a large part of the population of places like Bangladesh, & the horn of Africa ?

[JM2K6]

Not if the population; & more importantly the food producing land; was spread evenly around the planet; but it isn't.

The vast majority of humanity is densely populated around coasts, & with rising sea levels, that means that the majority of humanity's living space is under threat.

Yes, but there's a difference between "where humanity has traditionally settled" and "where's livable for humanity". Actual space where humans can live? Really not in short supply. How we're going to handle forced migration due to climate change? Totally different question.

And as we've seen in the last decade or two, immigration isn't exactly a simple matter, Politically speaking !

Who's going to sign up to accept the population of Pacific Islands, that are rapidly going underwater in the next couple of decades ?

And then in the slightly longer term; a large part of the population of places like Bangladesh, & the horn of Africa ?

Yup, these are all vital questions and not ones that are being asked in any volume right now.

[Niegs]

The pandemic got me wondering about transportation (mentioned above as a key source of carbon emissions). Canada must be especially guilty of this, not just as an industrial nation, but also one that relies on a LOT of goods trucked up from the US and Mexico and across the country from the ports (esp. the long haul, whether by train or truck, from Vancouver to Toronto, and east). There was also a stat that something like 50% of the food we generate (or maybe total generate and import) doesn't make it to table because of the wasteful process of transportation, the pickiness we exhibit when items don't look 'perfect' and our own wasteful habits of buying too much and letting it rot at home.

Now, because we're so comfortable / ignorant of this reality, I don't see us ever changing in my life time - unless something drastic causes us to change habits, like a massive shortage of fuel, driving prices sky high. How long are fossil fuels meant to last at current usage rates?

The bonus for us is that we have massive amounts of land that can be used for more locally-produced goods, if people were forced to shift their lifestyle, but we'd obviously have to ditch some things, pay a lot more, alter our diets to be seasonal because of climate, etc. I thought about this as well while watching those shows like Victorian / Edwardian / Wartime Farm. I think we started shifting wheat to the UK in the late 1800s, which changed a lot of how things were done, but people still get on today eating local - it'd be a simpler, seasonal diet, but surely it's do-able? (People wouldn't like it, but we could survive if forced, surely?)

[shaggy]

Yes, but there's a difference between "where humanity has traditionally settled" and "where's livable for humanity". Actual space where humans can live? Really not in short supply. How we're going to handle forced migration due to climate change? Totally different question.

And as we've seen in the last decade or two, immigration isn't exactly a simple matter, Politically speaking !

Who's going to sign up to accept the population of Pacific Islands, that are rapidly going underwater in the next couple of decades ?

And then in the slightly longer term; a large part of the population of places like Bangladesh, & the horn of Africa ?

Yup, these are all vital questions and not ones that are being asked in any volume right now.

NZ will accept the Pacific Island population that is of rugby playing age.

[inactionman]

The pandemic got me wondering about transportation (mentioned above as a key source of carbon emissions). Canada must be especially guilty of this, not just as an industrial nation, but also one that relies on a LOT of goods trucked up from the US and Mexico and across the country from the ports (esp. the long haul, whether by train or truck, from Vancouver to Toronto, and east). There was also a stat that something like 50% of the food we generate (or maybe total generate and import) doesn't make it to table because of the wasteful process of transportation, the pickiness we exhibit when items don't look 'perfect' and our own wasteful habits of buying too much and letting it rot at home.

Now, because we're so comfortable / ignorant of this reality, I don't see us ever changing in my life time - unless something drastic causes us to change habits, like a massive shortage of fuel, driving prices sky high. How long are fossil fuels meant to last at current usage rates?

The bonus for us is that we have massive amounts of land that can be used for more locally-produced goods, if people were forced to shift their lifestyle, but we'd obviously have to ditch some things, pay a lot more, alter our diets to be seasonal because of climate, etc. I thought about this as well while watching those shows like Victorian / Edwardian / Wartime Farm. I think we started shifting wheat to the UK in the late 1800s, which changed a lot of how things were done, but people still get on today eating local - it'd be a simpler, seasonal diet, but surely it's do-able? (People wouldn't like it, but we could survive if forced, surely?)

I'd have thought simple market economics would be the main catalyst of change - if your big mac costs a tenner and your ploughmans lunch two pounds fifty, McDonald's won't have long left on this earth.

Which is why actually getting proper levies for environmental costs is critical. Chopping down Amazonian rainforests for grazing for cattle to butcher for burgers has a huge impact and ultimate societal cost that is simply not levied - this land is cheap, abundant and sparsely populated and god knows Bolsonaro et al don't give a shit about it being lost

[sockwithaticket]

The pandemic got me wondering about transportation (mentioned above as a key source of carbon emissions). Canada must be especially guilty of this, not just as an industrial nation, but also one that relies on a LOT of goods trucked up from the US and Mexico and across the country from the ports (esp. the long haul, whether by train or truck, from Vancouver to Toronto, and east). There was also a stat that something like 50% of the food we generate (or maybe total generate and import) doesn't make it to table because of the wasteful process of transportation, the pickiness we exhibit when items don't look 'perfect' and our own wasteful habits of buying too much and letting it rot at home.

Now, because we're so comfortable / ignorant of this reality, I don't see us ever changing in my life time - unless something drastic causes us to change habits, like a massive shortage of fuel, driving prices sky high. How long are fossil fuels meant to last at current usage rates?

The bonus for us is that we have massive amounts of land that can be used for more locally-produced goods, if people were forced to shift their lifestyle, but we'd obviously have to ditch some things, pay a lot more, alter our diets to be seasonal because of climate, etc. I thought about this as well while watching those shows like Victorian / Edwardian / Wartime Farm. I think we started shifting wheat to the UK in the late 1800s, which changed a lot of how things were done, but people still get on today eating local - it'd be a simpler, seasonal diet, but surely it's do-able? (People wouldn't like it, but we could survive if forced, surely?)

Food is certainly an area where relatively simple gains could be made if people were prepared to take lifestlye hits.

That anyone can pop into a UK super market and pick up a mango as a fairly regular item not some incredibly rare, barely affordable luxury good at all, let alone all year round, is a huge part of the problem.

[fishfoodie]

And as we've seen in the last decade or two, immigration isn't exactly a simple matter, Politically speaking !

Who's going to sign up to accept the population of Pacific Islands, that are rapidly going underwater in the next couple of decades ?

And then in the slightly longer term; a large part of the population of places like Bangladesh, & the horn of Africa ?

Yup, these are all vital questions and not ones that are being asked in any volume right now.

NZ will accept the Pacific Island population that is of rugby playing age.

... & I think the UK will take anyone with a HGV license...

[Biffer]

The pandemic got me wondering about transportation (mentioned above as a key source of carbon emissions). Canada must be especially guilty of this, not just as an industrial nation, but also one that relies on a LOT of goods trucked up from the US and Mexico and across the country from the ports (esp. the long haul, whether by train or truck, from Vancouver to Toronto, and east). There was also a stat that something like 50% of the food we generate (or maybe total generate and import) doesn't make it to table because of the wasteful process of transportation, the pickiness we exhibit when items don't look 'perfect' and our own wasteful habits of buying too much and letting it rot at home.

Now, because we're so comfortable / ignorant of this reality, I don't see us ever changing in my life time - unless something drastic causes us to change habits, like a massive shortage of fuel, driving prices sky high. How long are fossil fuels meant to last at current usage rates?

The bonus for us is that we have massive amounts of land that can be used for more locally-produced goods, if people were forced to shift their lifestyle, but we'd obviously have to ditch some things, pay a lot more, alter our diets to be seasonal because of climate, etc. I thought about this as well while watching those shows like Victorian / Edwardian / Wartime Farm. I think we started shifting wheat to the UK in the late 1800s, which changed a lot of how things were done, but people still get on today eating local - it'd be a simpler, seasonal diet, but surely it's do-able? (People wouldn't like it, but we could survive if forced, surely?)

I'd have thought simple market economics would be the main catalyst of change - if your big mac costs a tenner and your ploughmans lunch two pounds fifty, McDonald's won't have long left on this earth.

Which is why actually getting proper levies for environmental costs is critical. Chopping down Amazonian rainforests for grazing for cattle to butcher for burgers has a huge impact and ultimate societal cost that is simply not levied - this land is cheap, abundant and sparsely populated and god knows Bolsonaro et al don't give a shit about it being lost

No. Simple market eco omics does not work for environmental matters.

A simple.market analysis says the sensible thing to do with the rainforest is to harvest it all as quickly as possible.

[inactionman]

The pandemic got me wondering about transportation (mentioned above as a key source of carbon emissions). Canada must be especially guilty of this, not just as an industrial nation, but also one that relies on a LOT of goods trucked up from the US and Mexico and across the country from the ports (esp. the long haul, whether by train or truck, from Vancouver to Toronto, and east). There was also a stat that something like 50% of the food we generate (or maybe total generate and import) doesn't make it to table because of the wasteful process of transportation, the pickiness we exhibit when items don't look 'perfect' and our own wasteful habits of buying too much and letting it rot at home.

Now, because we're so comfortable / ignorant of this reality, I don't see us ever changing in my life time - unless something drastic causes us to change habits, like a massive shortage of fuel, driving prices sky high. How long are fossil fuels meant to last at current usage rates?

The bonus for us is that we have massive amounts of land that can be used for more locally-produced goods, if people were forced to shift their lifestyle, but we'd obviously have to ditch some things, pay a lot more, alter our diets to be seasonal because of climate, etc. I thought about this as well while watching those shows like Victorian / Edwardian / Wartime Farm. I think we started shifting wheat to the UK in the late 1800s, which changed a lot of how things were done, but people still get on today eating local - it'd be a simpler, seasonal diet, but surely it's do-able? (People wouldn't like it, but we could survive if forced, surely?)

I'd have thought simple market economics would be the main catalyst of change - if your big mac costs a tenner and your ploughmans lunch two pounds fifty, McDonald's won't have long left on this earth.

Which is why actually getting proper levies for environmental costs is critical. Chopping down Amazonian rainforests for grazing for cattle to butcher for burgers has a huge impact and ultimate societal cost that is simply not levied - this land is cheap, abundant and sparsely populated and god knows Bolsonaro et al don't give a shit about it being lost

No. Simple market eco omics does not work for environmental matters.

A simple.market analysis says the sensible thing to do with the rainforest is to harvest it all as quickly as possible.

I meant apply a true cost at the point of purchase, and push that cost back through the entire supply and procurement chain.

Like we do for petrol and diesel, cigarettes etc. Would people seriously worry about car mpg if fuel duty wasn't so high?

This was in response to how we would enforce change, btw, as opposed to simply proscribing or rationing or otherwise trying to direct people into certain buying behaviours.

The equivalent but less difficult approach (noting that the above would require the buy-in of a global supply chain) is to reduce levies and duty on green - which we're doing, and really need to go further with.

[Sandstorm]

The pandemic got me wondering about transportation (mentioned above as a key source of carbon emissions). Canada must be especially guilty of this, not just as an industrial nation, but also one that relies on a LOT of goods trucked up from the US and Mexico and across the country from the ports (esp. the long haul, whether by train or truck, from Vancouver to Toronto, and east). There was also a stat that something like 50% of the food we generate (or maybe total generate and import) doesn't make it to table because of the wasteful process of transportation, the pickiness we exhibit when items don't look 'perfect' and our own wasteful habits of buying too much and letting it rot at home.

Now, because we're so comfortable / ignorant of this reality, I don't see us ever changing in my life time - unless something drastic causes us to change habits, like a massive shortage of fuel, driving prices sky high. How long are fossil fuels meant to last at current usage rates?

The bonus for us is that we have massive amounts of land that can be used for more locally-produced goods, if people were forced to shift their lifestyle, but we'd obviously have to ditch some things, pay a lot more, alter our diets to be seasonal because of climate, etc. I thought about this as well while watching those shows like Victorian / Edwardian / Wartime Farm. I think we started shifting wheat to the UK in the late 1800s, which changed a lot of how things were done, but people still get on today eating local - it'd be a simpler, seasonal diet, but surely it's do-able? (People wouldn't like it, but we could survive if forced, surely?)

Food is certainly an area where relatively simple gains could be made if people were prepared to take lifestlye hits.

That anyone can pop into a UK super market and pick up a mango as a fairly regular item not some incredibly rare, barely affordable luxury good at all, let alone all year round, is a huge part of the problem.

But if we stop buying £1.75 mangoes, then how do mango producers in Costa Rica improve their lot and change their children’s future?

[Certain Navigator]

Telling people to solve climate change by not doing one of the things we're built to do, that is a core biological impulse for pretty much all life on this planet, is a non-starter.

What individuals are able to do is fucking irrelevant compared to what corporations are able to do, anyway.

The hypocrisy of the whole greenie movement: Only ever expect other people to make sacrifices. Never make them yourself.

[Certain Navigator]

Space is also not a problem and not likely to be one for some time.

Not sure if that's a interstellar quip or whether you are seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively over crowded with humans?

I'm seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively overcrowded with humans. It's not backed up by the evidence. The problem is overconsumption, not overcrowding, and there's plenty of doubt over whether overpopulation is any kind of real problem. As it is, actual physical space is not hard to find.

The problem isn't even 'over-consumption', since we're actually producing far more with far fewer resources (something the Attenboroughs of this world are unable, or unwilling, to comprehend).

The real problem is scare-mongering.

[Biffer]

I'd have thought simple market economics would be the main catalyst of change - if your big mac costs a tenner and your ploughmans lunch two pounds fifty, McDonald's won't have long left on this earth.

Which is why actually getting proper levies for environmental costs is critical. Chopping down Amazonian rainforests for grazing for cattle to butcher for burgers has a huge impact and ultimate societal cost that is simply not levied - this land is cheap, abundant and sparsely populated and god knows Bolsonaro et al don't give a shit about it being lost

No. Simple market eco omics does not work for environmental matters.

A simple.market analysis says the sensible thing to do with the rainforest is to harvest it all as quickly as possible.

I meant apply a true cost at the point of purchase, and push that cost back through the entire supply and procurement chain.

Like we do for petrol and diesel, cigarettes etc. Would people seriously worry about car mpg if fuel duty wasn't so high?

This was in response to how we would enforce change, btw, as opposed to simply proscribing or rationing or otherwise trying to direct people into certain buying behaviours.

The equivalent but less difficult approach (noting that the above would require the buy-in of a global supply chain) is to reduce levies and duty on green - which we're doing, and really need to go further with.

Yeah.

If you do that it says cut the rainforest down.

[Sandstorm]

Not sure if that's a interstellar quip or whether you are seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively over crowded with humans?

I'm seriously suggesting the planet isn't already massively overcrowded with humans. It's not backed up by the evidence. The problem is overconsumption, not overcrowding, and there's plenty of doubt over whether overpopulation is any kind of real problem. As it is, actual physical space is not hard to find.

The problem isn't even 'over-consumption', since we're actually producing far more with far fewer resources (something the Attenboroughs of this world are unable, or unwilling, to comprehend).

The real problem is scare-mongering.

Putz

[mat the expat]

Your attitude sux. Everyone has to reduce their output. It all counts.

You’ve clearly or wilfully ignored my last sentence then.

Don’t forget the big polluters such as INEOS, BP and dozens of other smaller gaz&oil companies,

Pollution index by countries
https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankin ... ountry.jsp

I don’t know if it has been mentioned, but agriculture is the 2nd most polluting industry.

And all the main contributors are generally owned by companies in 1st World countries

[JM2K6]

Telling people to solve climate change by not doing one of the things we're built to do, that is a core biological impulse for pretty much all life on this planet, is a non-starter.

What individuals are able to do is fucking irrelevant compared to what corporations are able to do, anyway.

The hypocrisy of the whole greenie movement: Only ever expect other people to make sacrifices. Never make them yourself.

Corporations aren't people