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.

[quote PumpkinsandTea]@JassyRadlett I wasn't referring to economy! 🤣
I'm talking literal size in comparison to the rest of the world! In terms of climate change and the difference a tiny, tiny little island like ours can actually make to a massive planet like this. Nothing to do with money ffs [/quote]
That doesn’t really stack up when you look at the totally disproportionate impact of our tiny, tiny island.

The impact we make has nothing to do with our physical geography. It’s based on our production, our consumption and our investments. On all of those measures, both absolute and per capita, our impact is significant.

Sixth largest economy, twenty-first largest population. The land area of the country is totally irrelevant. It’s about how many people live here, how much money we have collectively, and what we do with it.

@Lilifer Patrick Moore is s notorious climate change denier, he wasn't a co-founder of Greenpeace and was sacked in 1986. He is a lobbyist for nuclear and coal industries.

As parents I'd say what you need to ask Leaders for is help against the barrage of clever psychological marketing that, if parents don't indulge in "new things" for their kids, from tech to furniture to toys, they don't care enough or that their children will be at risk of harm without the ability to text home or be tracked.

The deforestation in Siberia is killing the world quicker than that of the Amazon and lots of it is going into your kids toys and furniture www.earthsight.org.uk/news/press-release-illegal-russian-wood-hidden-inside-ikea-children-furniture

[quote time4anothername]As parents I'd say what you need to ask Leaders for is help against the barrage of clever psychological marketing that, if parents don't indulge in "new things" for their kids, from tech to furniture to toys, they don't care enough or that their children will be at risk of harm without the ability to text home or be tracked.

The deforestation in Siberia is killing the world quicker than that of the Amazon and lots of it is going into your kids toys and furniture www.earthsight.org.uk/news/press-release-illegal-russian-wood-hidden-inside-ikea-children-furniture[/quote]
@time4anothername We couldn't agree more. Tech holds an enormous footprint. The entire culture around screens needs to change. Thank you for your comment.

[quote Daftasabroom]@Lilifer Patrick Moore is s notorious climate change denier, he wasn't a co-founder of Greenpeace and was sacked in 1986. He is a lobbyist for nuclear and coal industries.[/quote]
On reading your post I looked at the Wikipedia entry on Patrick Moore and it would appear (unless wiki is factually incorrect) that your statement is very inaccurate. I would suggest anyone who is interested in what this man has to say should check out Wikipedia and then watch this interview on you tube.

@JassyRadlett

My argument is that they need fossil fuels now to be more productive. Renewables really cannot replace fossil fuels. And what is the health burden you are mentioning here?

They need energy now to be more productive. Renewables now as cheap as fossil fuels for electricity - storage and/or base load become the issue. Driving those countries into total fossil fuel dependency rather than on a similar technological pathway would be criminal.

Poor air quality impacts of fossil fuel burning are fairly well documented, and the health impacts and burdens on health systems are pretty major (it was one of the big drivers for China on starting to move away from fossil fuels, tbh.)

Scientists say the earth is warming, I think so too. But scientists do not know how to translate their knowledge into policy. And we can debate over it, it’s debatable about what policies we should pursue.

But your argument on this wasn’t on the policy response, it was that the scientists are wrong about the physical consequences of that warming in the form of natural disasters including droughts, severe storms.

Please do let the Australian, Canadian and particularly the Madagascan farmers know about these magic crops that can deal with their recent droughts because all the CO2 means they can do without water.

Or the farmers in Uganda whose crops are now fucked because they’ve had too much rain and their yields are screwed.

Unstable weather makes farming incredibly difficult. And the amount of arable land overall is likely to shrink significantly with the current pace of heating.

I prefer mitigation over unreliable energy policies. We should explore what that could look like. I think we could agree on a lot really.

Mitigation is prevention. You’re talking about adaptation. At this point, we’re going to need both. But there’s only so much adaptation you can do. Might be ok for the ‘healthy productive economies’ you talked about earlier but the developing countries you claim to care about? How much adaptation can they afford, or is even practicable? How do they deal with ever-increasing floods and droughts, lower crop yields, rising sea levels?

And as for unstable energy policies… our reliance on gas is working out really well for us right now, isn’t it?

You talk a lot of sense. Yes, madness for developing countries to continue to rely on fossil fuels to get out of poverty and develop at speed. They will simply be in our position in 10 years time. They have the opportunity to skip straight to renewable energy sources without the cost and hassle of trying to convert over or the health aspects we have had. Madness to think fossil fuels are the only option for this. Renewal energy also creates jobs and communities can be supported to thrive through green initiatives. Rather like paying the poachers who used to kill tigers etc to protect them instead in different ways.

Investment by the rich countries to support these countries needs to take place though. They can't do it alone.

Thanks @gingercatsparky. The fossil fuel lobby would love developing countries to be dependent on them for supplies and therefore also more supplicant when it comes to diplomatic and trade issues (I mean, see Germany when it comes to Russia.)

And totally agree that this is where the countries that benefited massively from fossil fuel develop need to step up on climate finance to make sure there’s a just and fair transition and those countries can leapfrog over coal, oil and gas.

[quote Daftasabroom]@Lilifer Patrick Moore is s notorious climate change denier, he wasn't a co-founder of Greenpeace and was sacked in 1986. He is a lobbyist for nuclear and coal industries.[/quote]
Also can stop labelling anyone who does not 100% buy in to the net zero narrative a "climate change denier?" It's a blatant verbal link to the earlier term of holocaust denier and therefore seeks to paint anyone who differs or questions as an evil person.

@NeverRTFT

Lots of sound bites saying we/governments "must act" and "things must change". What exactly are activists and scientists asking for? In my mind it can only entail wholesale changes to how we live (no more flights for leisure or pleasure, change our diets, redistribution of working/living zones in urban areas to reduce travel, stop manufacturing plastic altogether, and so on...) and also to how economies function. Is this what governments are there to do? Or just make more targets and take some pics?

@NeberRTFT

Primarily we are asking for an end to all fossil fuel financing and exploration. Because we cannot continue to pull oil and gas out of the earth. Should that demand be heard and met, then the economy will have to adapt accordingly.

There needs to be much more focus on DEgrowth rather than on switching one thing for another and carrying on as normal. We need to change everything about the way we live.

And yes, it could well be 'more targets and a few pics'. In which case Mother Nature will change everything for us herself.

But we do not know yet what will happen. The future is not yet set.

While I can get on board with doing our bit to help climate change I cant help but feel this should be aimed more at companies and there should be means to stop them passing on prices rises to the consumer.
So if these companies are forced to change their practices are they going to put prices up?
Agree with a pp I would love to have more choice but my finances dictate weather I buy eco friendly or not.
What I'm getting at is is it going to be financially viable to go all out eco friendly from a consumers pov.

@Lilifer I think it is fair to say that Moore’s statements have long been very much on the side of denying anthropogenic climate change and very distant from the overwhelming scientific consensus, including saying the idea of a climate crisis was ‘fake news’ and that CO2 has an insignificant effect on the climate.

I agree that not everyone who questions climate policies should be called a denier, but Moore has made fairly recent statements that actively fall under the definition of denying significant human-caused climate change.

And Greenpeace definitely disputes his claim to be a co-founder.

@nitsandwormsdodger

A lot of people expecting you to live perfect eco lives What were the hardest and easiest changes ? and what do you think you Never achieve ?

@nitsandwormsdodger - love your MN name!!

Good questions. Yes there is a demand for all those who speak up to be absolutely perfect which is unhelpful. We don't need a few people being perfect, we need millions of imperfect people just trying their best!

Ditching animal products was not hard - especially as it is now much more socially acceptable - but we recognise our privilege in being able to switch. For many who are economically disadvantaged and/or time poor, it is not an easy option. We avoid driving whenever possible, use grey water, we don't fly, we avoid plastic and in general we just keep a close eye on our personal carbon footprints because behaviour change over time = systems change. But since we know that individuals on their own can't make enough of a difference in the limited time we have available to us, we focus a larger part of our energies on political action. If we have to choose between making our own hummus and speaking with an MP for example, we would choose the latter!

@MrsIglesias

Thank you Charlotte and Rowan for what you are doing!

I'm so concerning about the worsening state of our planet (and life-support system!) that we are leaving to our children. What's one thing I can do to help you (that can be done in 2/3 mins if possible pls!)

@Mrslglesias - thank you!!! A really wonderful thing you could do would be to sign and share our open letter. We need as many parent groups as possible to sign it. Please visit us on Instagram (@parentsforfuture_UK) and find the letter in our bio! Should take under three minutes and really will make a difference. Thank you!!

Can I also ask what is grey water? I've seen it mentioned twice but never heard of it before

Renewables now as cheap as fossil fuels for electricity - storage and/or base load become the issue. Driving those countries into total fossil fuel dependency rather than on a similar technological pathway would be criminal

The tech doesn’t even exist for this and you are somehow saying it’s just as cheap?

Poor air quality impacts of fossil fuel burning are fairly well documented, and the health impacts and burdens on health systems are pretty major (it was one of the big drivers for China on starting to move away from fossil fuels, tbh.)

I lived in China many years, I breathed in that nasty air. But the solution was to relocate power plants to rural areas.

China needs power, lots of it. Every type: the energy mix though hasn’t changed much because renewables are additive, it doesn’t replace anything. That’s an important point—renewables add to the power supply in China, they DO NOT replace fossil fuels.

But your argument on this wasn’t on the policy response, it was that the scientists are wrong about the physical consequences of that warming in the form of natural disasters including droughts, severe storms

Never said it was wrong. I said it is better to adapt to these realities rather than change our entire energy system, which has worked rather well for us.

Please do let the Australian, Canadian and particularly the Madagascan farmers know about these magic crops that can deal with their recent droughts because all the CO2 means they can do without water

Good thing we have a global system of trade so crop failure doesn’t mean famine and mass death as it did in the past.

Unstable weather makes farming incredibly difficult

You know what really makes farming incredibly difficult? Trying to do it without fossil fuels. It’s actually impossible and shouldn’t even be attempted

And the amount of arable land overall is likely to shrink significantly with the current pace of heating

Sahara is actually greening and many other places will experience this effect as well due to higher CO2 emissions. Could also open up northern land to better farming conditions. It’s not all bad, in other words.

I prefer mitigation over unreliable energy policies. We should explore what that could look like. I think we could agree on a lot really

Might be ok for the ‘healthy productive economies’ you talked about earlier

The way you put those in quotation marks means that you don’t think our global economy is healthy or productive. Says a lot about your values I guess.

the developing countries you claim to care about? How much adaptation can they afford, or is even practicable? How do they deal with ever-increasing floods and droughts, lower crop yields, rising sea levels?

I lived in one, so spare me your pearl clutching. They can deal with it by building structures meant to withstand nature. Look at China—death from floods and typhoons used to number in the thousands (tens of thousands, even) but with development, they have dropped massively. All due to economic development. Rising sea levels—we already have the tech for that. Look at Holland for one.

And as for unstable energy policies… our reliance on gas is working out really well for us right now, isn’t it?

Maybe you should support domestic gas projects and fracking then. Relying on renewables means that you are only going to be dependent on natural gas. Best to have a domestic source for it.

@ParentsForFuture

What’s your stance on nuclear power?

@Lilifer anyone with an account can change any Wikipedia entry, it's notorious for the dissemination of untruths.

Moore sells himself as Chief Scientific at Eco Environmental. It gets one Google search result and appears to have one employee, Patrick Moore.

xkcd.com/1732/

@Bigassbeebuzzbuzz

While I can get on board with doing our bit to help climate change I cant help but feel this should be aimed more at companies and there should be means to stop them passing on prices rises to the consumer. So if these companies are forced to change their practices are they going to put prices up? Agree with a pp I would love to have more choice but my finances dictate weather I buy eco friendly or not. What I'm getting at is is it going to be financially viable to go all out eco friendly from a consumers pov.

@Bigassbeebuzzbuzz

We couldn't agree more. That's exactly who are are aiming at. Not the consumer. You can help us by signing our open letter - find it on the link tree on our Instagram page. Thank you!!

Thanks for joining in the conversation!

The tech doesn’t even exist for this and you are somehow saying it’s just as cheap?

Renewables definitely exist, are at grid parity or cheaper, and are becoming increasingly abundant.

The tech for storage does exist. Right now it’s expensive but with investment is becoming cheaper and more deployable faster than expected. Network operation is changing in many places to enable greater flexibility and off site storage.

And in terms of base load, nuclear definitely exists.

I lived in one, so spare me your pearl clutching. They can deal with it by building structures meant to withstand nature. Look at China—death from floods and typhoons used to number in the thousands (tens of thousands, even) but with development, they have dropped massively. All due to economic development. Rising sea levels—we already have the tech for that. Look at Holland for one.

So did I - more than one, actually, including those at risk of inundation who can’t afford the Dutch path. Incidentally, the Dutch are a bit screwed, too - the tech they will need to deal with predicted sea level rises even at the modest end of predictions actually doesn’t currently exist. (I know farming pretty well too, including in some very poor places; that’s going to be one of the most difficult sectors to totally decarbonise, which is the point of net rather than absolute zero.) As I’ve said I totally agree these places need to develop, so drop that straw man too. 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. 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.

Maybe you should support domestic gas projects and fracking then. Relying on renewables means that you are only going to be dependent on natural gas. Best to have a domestic source for it.

I disagree. What’s left in the North Sea is increasingly expensive and difficult lot to extract; most isn’t economically viable without significant subsidy. That subsidy would be much better off going into retrofitting homes with energy efficiency and clean heat, subsidising EVs and building new nuclear. Why delay the pain and increase the costs when more cost-stable energy sources are available?

Fracking was a decade-long sideshow where any attempts at extraction just showed that we’re not Texas; our shale reserves tend to be under quite heavily populated areas, our appetite for seismic activity and water table pollution is much lower, and renewables are already significantly cheaper as an energy source.

And the domestic gas price tracks the global price unless we put up significant barriers.

None of this is economically literate or would increase our energy security in the medium or long term for any country when electrification is a viable and near-term alternative.

On your other points, 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, but you seem determined to ignore what the scientists are predicting so there’s little point in engaging on it.

[quote Daftasabroom]@Lilifer anyone with an account can change any Wikipedia entry, it's notorious for the dissemination of untruths.

Moore sells himself as Chief Scientific at Eco Environmental. It gets one Google search result and appears to have one employee, Patrick Moore.[/quote]
Not sure what you are referring to with that as Eco Environmental is a company based in the Uk, which specialises in humane bird deterrent services to the property and construction sector, it has a great many employees and Patrick Moore has no connection to this company.

Sorry for totally hijacking the thread, @ParentsForFuture! I should know better than to get sucked in by the oil and gas playbook by now - I’ll restrain myself; hopefully most on this thread will see it for the disinformation it is.

I would be impressed if you could get China or India on board with saving the planet.

@Lilifer apologies, ecosense environmental.

Or Russia