I'm a mum going to COP26 - AMA

[ParentsForFuture]

We're Charlotte and Rowan from Parents for Future UK, a growing group of parent climate campaigners. We're going to COP26 in Glasgow to demand ambitious action on the climate emergency and are planning what will be the biggest mobilization of parents ever on a single issue, with other parent groups. Mumsnet reached out to us to come on and answer your questions on COP26 and how parents can make their voice heard. Our work is led by parents and rooted in love (and fear). Charlotte (Mumsnetter) is from Bath and Rowan is from Oxford, and we each have two children, aged 3 and 7.

I don't have a question but just want to echo PP's saying thank you. It's so good to hear parents voices will also be raised. The fate of our planet keeps me awake at night and fearful for my children's future.

Acting on a small scale is all I can afford the time and money to do; it's limited but I'm happy to do it. Now we also need to see governments, industry and business making the harder choices too.

[quote Daftasabroom]@Lilifer apologies, ecosense environmental.[/quote]
Do you mean
ecosense.me
This is his personal website, not a company.
There are a couple of companies that go by the name of ecosense environmental but neither of them are connected to Patrick Moore.

Where are you getting your info from??

Fossil fuel dependence is a really stupid way for them to develop, and piling the costs of adaptation onto them to deal with a problem the global north created is pretty criminal

There is no other road map to development. Western and Asian economies used fossil fuels to great benefit.

It’s basically the fossil fuel producing countries’ last desperate push to maintain the control they currently exercise by holding the oil and gas taps

If you mean Russia and OPEC, then it’s best to push ahead for fracking. The price war between Russia and OPEC pretty much killed fracking in North America, should be a big push to develop that further for economic and geopolitical reasons.

What’s left in the North Sea is increasingly expensive and difficult lot to extract; most isn’t economically viable without significant subsidy

That’s a shame, then.

That subsidy would be much better off going into retrofitting homes with energy efficiency and clean heat, subsidising EVs and building new nuclear

I have no issue with any of this and am quite supportive of these efforts.

our appetite for seismic activity and water table pollution is much lower, and renewables are already significantly cheaper as an energy source

Fracking does not pollute the water or cause earthquakes.

you seem determined to ignore the predictions of the scale of changes that will happen above 2 degrees; the idea that a global trade system will somehow be able to feed the peak 9 billion with declining crop yields across the world and fewer inhabitable areas due to climate change is fanciful

What is fanciful is the idea that these models are in any way accurate. Why do you think there will be uninhabitable regions?

Fracking does not pollute the water or cause earthquakes.

And this is the moment you jumped the shark, love. You were almost credible but given we have UK monitoring data on seismic activity caused by test fracks, you’ve shown way too much of your hand now. 😂

NB I meant credible as in ‘an individual who honestly believes the nonsense they’re spouting’ rather than ‘the things you are saying have any credibility at all.’

Thanks, OP. Sorry there is so much cuntishness on this thread.

@ParentsForFuture

I'd be really interested in your responses to these questions. I'm not trying to be goady, I'd like to hear your perspective.

1. Why did neither of you decide to stop at 1 or 0 children considering the environmental impact? I don't observe many environmentalist parents choosing to limit their family size in this way. Obviously there are plenty of other behaviours that can be modified but this is the biggest and it's never compromised upon in my middle-class circles. Please don't say you only tuned into the environment after having children as the issue has been headline news for at least a decade.

2. In what way do you think 'hand-delivering' a letter is going to be any more impactful than sending it electronically? Surely this would be the most environmentally-friendly way of getting your message across. Presumably you won't be anywhere near world leaders, are they going to be in the audience watching you speak?
   I'm not sure why the entire conference isn't being held online.

Re. the latter there have been some points made about the carbon footprint of servers and the benefit of speaking to people in person. I'm not sure either are comparable to the footprint of the conference.

It’s so disappointing to see you discussing encouraging people to ditch animal products, although you haven’t of course because animals are used to produce fresh produce and cereal crops too.

Organisations like yours should be championing British farmers, not encouraging people to stop eating their produce.

Did you know that British farmers have installed on their farm so much green energy technology that they power 10 million homes on average a day. Did you know that the British farming industry is on track to become carbon neutral by 2040? Or that if all the dairy farmers in the world were as efficient as British dairy farmers, the worlds milk supply could be met by 76 million cows instead of 278 million. 97% of the water used in sheep production and 85% of beef is rainwater. Or 100,000 hectares of land is managed for nature through things like species rich field margins, wildflower meadows or orchards. That UK beef has half the carbon emissions of the global average and dairy 40% of the average global emissions. 65% of the available land in the UK for farming is only suitable for grazing and therefore sequesters carbon and turns inedible grass into high quality protein.

It’s really easy for people to bash farming, instead of encouraging people to eat food from abroad you should be encouraging the consumption of local food, high quality food.

Agree with the above poster on British farming ... but British veg and crops not meat. It might not be what we want to hear but any meat consumption - even organic from the farm next door- is not planet healthy . Make it a treat I say and make it ethically sourced and local
Well done to the OPs! Women are underrepresented in climate talks

What is your organisation doing to engage with working class parents?

The environmental movement is dominated by middle class, typically white folk. I’m WC background and lots of people living on my estate don’t give a shiny shite about the environment. I do blame the environmental movement as it’s not bothered to engage with us!! You go onto websites and they’re clearly aimed at educated, leftie types (I’m generalising but that’s how it feels).

People where I live aspire to owning lots of stuff and spend lots on cheap tat. Also multiple expensive cars on HP. Drive short distances to corner shops. I’m not talking about people in poverty, but working class communities where there is a fair amount of money, but low awareness of climate change and the environmental impact of their behaviour.

... and thank you for representing us parents. I really hope this turns everyone’s attention to the issues- regardless of backgrounds

@elbea thanks for that, it's great to see it all written down like that!

@JassyRadlett

Fracking does not pollute the water or cause earthquakes.

And this is the moment you jumped the shark, love. You were almost credible but given we have UK monitoring data on seismic activity caused by test fracks, you’ve shown way too much of your hand now. 😂

Wow you think I’m a shill for the oil and gas industry. I wish—could use the money 😂

DM me Shell!

Just think it’s disingenuous to suggest fracking causes earthquakes when that link hasn’t been established. The seismic activity is on par with other mining activities and fracking gets singled out for no good reason.

Interesting topic op thanks. Sorry you're getting a hard time from some.

@elbea

It’s so disappointing to see you discussing encouraging people to ditch animal products, although you haven’t of course because animals are used to produce fresh produce and cereal crops too.

Organisations like yours should be championing British farmers, not encouraging people to stop eating their produce.

Did you know that British farmers have installed on their farm so much green energy technology that they power 10 million homes on average a day. Did you know that the British farming industry is on track to become carbon neutral by 2040? Or that if all the dairy farmers in the world were as efficient as British dairy farmers, the worlds milk supply could be met by 76 million cows instead of 278 million. 97% of the water used in sheep production and 85% of beef is rainwater. Or 100,000 hectares of land is managed for nature through things like species rich field margins, wildflower meadows or orchards. That UK beef has half the carbon emissions of the global average and dairy 40% of the average global emissions. 65% of the available land in the UK for farming is only suitable for grazing and therefore sequesters carbon and turns inedible grass into high quality protein.

It’s really easy for people to bash farming, instead of encouraging people to eat food from abroad you should be encouraging the consumption of local food, high quality food.

Exactly. The idea that we are going to be dependent on artificial fertilizer to grow our food is frightening. It's time we had a sensible discussion in this country about agriculture and the food we eat.

The idea that we are going to be dependent on artificial fertilizer to grow our food is frightening

Why is this idea frightening? Chemical fertilisers have been lifesaving, we could never have fed most of the planet without them.

@elbea

It’s so disappointing to see you discussing encouraging people to ditch animal products, although you haven’t of course because animals are used to produce fresh produce and cereal crops too.

Organisations like yours should be championing British farmers, not encouraging people to stop eating their produce.

Did you know that British farmers have installed on their farm so much green energy technology that they power 10 million homes on average a day. Did you know that the British farming industry is on track to become carbon neutral by 2040? Or that if all the dairy farmers in the world were as efficient as British dairy farmers, the worlds milk supply could be met by 76 million cows instead of 278 million. 97% of the water used in sheep production and 85% of beef is rainwater. Or 100,000 hectares of land is managed for nature through things like species rich field margins, wildflower meadows or orchards. That UK beef has half the carbon emissions of the global average and dairy 40% of the average global emissions. 65% of the available land in the UK for farming is only suitable for grazing and therefore sequesters carbon and turns inedible grass into high quality protein.

It’s really easy for people to bash farming, instead of encouraging people to eat food from abroad you should be encouraging the consumption of local food, high quality food.

Really interesting stats, @elbea, I didn’t know that. But despite all these efforts, hasnt research indicated unequivocally that giving up meat would have the most environmental impact? It’s fantastic that the farming industry has made these steps in the meantime but still, isn’t veganism the most environmentally friendly option? Despite its own negative impacts? Not trying to start a fight but this is what I understood to be the case.

Heruka I think as a global average maybe, but i don't think it takes into account that some land that just can't be used to grow crops. Think of hillside farms for example. Easily grazed by sheep, but not so easy to plough!

Yes but how many of us get to say: I’ll have hillside grazing lamb please?
Out of reach for most so an easy planet save is to switch to plant based or mainly plant based

@Heruka research doesn't show that giving up meat would have the most environmental impact. Livestock and manure account for 5.8% of emissions, burning fossil fuels for energy accounts for 73.2% of emissions.

@GoodbyePorpoiseSpit look for the little red tractor.

Do you think it would have been better had COP26 been held virtually rather than encouraging delegates and the 100,000 support staff, activists etc to travel ... personally I think this would have sent a much clearer message about doing things differently and would not smack so much of hypocrisy ...

@Heruka It’s impossible to give up animal agriculture entirely. I agree that people should maybe eat less, high quality local meat. Vegans still contribute to animal emissions whether they acknowledge it or not as they are used in arable and fresh produce farming ever increasingly, especially if you eat organic food.

The problem is people like the OP decry that becoming vegan is the best thing for the environment - but what they mean is that it vegan food produces less carbon emissions.

Animal agriculture is actually essential for the production of sustainable fresh produce and cereal.

It’s quite complex but a I’d highly recommend the book ‘Wilding’ or this Guardian article is a small summary www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize

The other aspect which has never been more apparent is food security. Grazing animals convert inedible grass into protein. The land they graze (65% of all available agricultural land) cannot be farmed for anything else.

I think it’s very narrow minded to just focus on carbon emissions when farming is extremely complex and animal agriculture provides benefits to the environment in other ways.

@GoodbyePorpoiseSpit This is why people need a firm education in agriculture and how food is produced at school. People are entirely disconnected from the realities of farming and have little understanding.

Farmers do not graze livestock on arable land (the exception being during breaks in a crop cycle, animals grazing something like sugar beet or alfalfa has a huge benefit to the land, it restores fertility, reduces weeds and disease, improves soil structure). Farmers aren’t stupid, it wouldn’t make financial sense to use grade 1 and 2 land.

65% of the land in this country is suitable for nothing else. If you plough it up you’d barely grow anything, release all of the carbon sequestered and reduce biodiversity.

@PolkadotsAndMoonbeams

Heruka I think as a global average maybe, but i don't think it takes into account that some land that just can't be used to grow crops. Think of hillside farms for example. Easily grazed by sheep, but not so easy to plough!

I have a sheep farm but it's not a hill farm. It's 'less favoured' grassland which is useless for growing most crops except grass.