Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Code red for humanity -

231 replies

54321nought · 09/08/2021 17:12

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58138714

UN climate change report

Climate change is already massive, unstoppable and hugely destructive.

We have to reduce the number of children we are having, reduce the amount of meat fish and dairy we eat, stop driving cars so unnecessarily, stop burning fossil fuel, convert to using renewable energy, stop sending rubbish to landfill, reduce reuse and recycle.

Otherwise the human race is finished. Its as simple as that.

OP posts:
Skybluepinkgiraffe · 10/08/2021 11:22

I agree we should be able to discuss all sorts of things, @Puzzledandpissedoff
So often people are shut down for their opinions, which only makes them double down.
I cannot bear the virtual signalling and purity spiralling that goes on, particularly on line.
We need to be able to discuss things, or how can they be resolved?

Skybluepinkgiraffe · 10/08/2021 11:22

@NCwhatsmynameagain

We need governments and organisations to act radically, they have levers they can pull to make huge changes literally overnight as proven by COVID, so the responsibility should not simply rest with individuals- we will continue to get it wrong for various reasons!
Yes if nothing else, covid showed us how interlinked everything is, too.
AlaskaThunderfuckHiiiiiiiii · 10/08/2021 11:26

@Amima I agree but there are still certain sections of society that need better support for education or they end up having 8 children like someone I know near me, more support to realise there is more to life and other purposes.

@BeetleyCarapace I think working in healthcare has really opened my eyes to the suffering we keep some people in under the guise of ‘compassionate care’

Puzzledandpissedoff · 10/08/2021 11:36

Totally agree with you, Skybluepinkgiraffe, but sadly on here a different view, or even another take on the same one, is deemed to be proof that someone's "stupid", "a denier" or whatever the latest insult of choice is - doubly so if it's a cause which happens to be fashionable

I've chaired so many meetings like this, where the loudest voices DEMAND that something's done NOW; they stamp and insist on a demo, a delegation to wherever-it-is, etc, but having delivered themselves of their view they're nowhere to be seen when it comes to any actual action

Amima · 10/08/2021 12:05

Something has to change to stop people breeding indiscriminately
The problem is not the number of people born. The problem is they aren’t dying any more.

People who don't rely on cars rarely end up living 45 miles from their place of work!
The problem is that jobs are in cities. People can’t afford houses in expensive cities, so they live further away, which means they need a car. They can’t choose a job closer to home either, because there aren’t any!

ichundich · 10/08/2021 12:13

@Puzzledandpissedoff

As a species we may well survive, but as a species our numbers have dropped significantly in the past in response to climate changes

This is true, but looking at the response to folk dying with Covid it seems no deaths can be tolerated any more
Amazing too - and oh so convenient - that so many "discover" climate issues only after they've had the kids (and then start telling everyone else they should only have a certain number)

Good to see Plan here banging the drum for common sense, but otherwise it looks to me like yet another opportunity for competitive panic and a nice bit of virtue signalling ...

I take it from your post that you don't have any children. Well done you. Do you ever fly on holiday? Own a car? Change your wardrobe because of fashion? Only buy the things you actually need? Because if you don't then you're a bit of a hypocrite yourself. And that's no excuse by the way for throwing your hands up in the air and saying "The damage is done now anyway, so might as well carry on..."
Amima · 10/08/2021 12:24

At the end of the day we all need to participate in solving this. It can’t be left up to individuals to decide. As distasteful as it is, people will have to be forced to comply if they don’t do so willingly. Only the government can do that. Ration meat and fish, max 2 flights a year per person, two child policy, ban single use plastic, etc.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 10/08/2021 12:27

I take it from your post that you don't have any children

Just the one ... and I don't drive, do buy second hand where possible and don't have a thing for acquiring "stuff"
One thing I'm not prepared to give up however is travel (well, when we can!!) so it probably all balances out in the end

Perhaps the main difference though is that I don't tend to tell others what they've got to do, on pain of us all disappearing under a tidal wave or whatever; I might for example ask "Have you considered ...?" rather than being downright rude, and tend to find it the better approach on the whole

PlanDeRaccordement · 10/08/2021 12:51

@NCwhatsmynameagain

We need governments and organisations to act radically, they have levers they can pull to make huge changes literally overnight as proven by COVID, so the responsibility should not simply rest with individuals- we will continue to get it wrong for various reasons!
What would that be? It’s all well and good to demand action....but what should they do precisely? They’re already phasing out coal and fossil fuels They’re already investing trillions into green technologies and renewable energy They’ve already committed to net zero carbon dates

What I think is missing is acceptance of climate change inevitability. The sea levels will continue to rise, as they have for the past 26,000 years and yes more migration is going to happen. Let’s be proactive and start investing in re-settling those in the areas endangered like the low lying pacific islands and major coastal cities. Instead of sitting by and screaming about disasters and people dying, while fruitlessly trying to turn back the tide. We should be investing money into moving populations to higher ground, safely and with dignity. Families and villages intact, cultures preserved. Why wait for them to be desperate refugees with nothing and all they know and love being lost beneath rising waters? Whether that’s sea levels or flooding rivers.

NCwhatsmynameagain · 10/08/2021 12:57

@PlanDeRaccordement any of the unambitious measure in place are very evidently happening far too slowly and are not transformative enough to have any sort of meaningful impact on the crisis, hence us reaching this point of no return.
I’m not going to engage with the idea that this crisis was inevitable. It’s been made get plain that this was not inevitable and had been on humankind’s making. And the idea that we should let it happen and deal with the catastrophic consequences. Where would you like to rehome the many many many millions of displaced people this will cause, and how do you propose to deal with the severe worldwide drought and flooding? Just moving people around like a chess game? Ridiculous.

Amima · 10/08/2021 13:03

It’s all well and good to demand action....but what should they do precisely?
Rationing. Of everything. And we need to prevent migration which puts our society at risk.

PlanDeRaccordement · 10/08/2021 13:03

It is inevitable now. Whether it was or wasn’t is irrelevant.

Yes, many countries have very low population density. USA, Russia, Canada for example. There is plenty of room to resettle people. I think we should do it. Just have governments offer free immigration visas to anyone in a “red zone” threatened by climate change and you’d see people choosing to immigrate. Isn’t it better to start moving these millions now and in an orderly fashion rather than wait for them to be desperate refugees fighting over evacuation spots and ending up in refugee camps dying in squalid conditions? We can do this humanely now, or wait and let millions die and only save a fraction. Hardly ridiculous to suggest.

PlanDeRaccordement · 10/08/2021 13:05

@Amima

It’s all well and good to demand action....but what should they do precisely? Rationing. Of everything. And we need to prevent migration which puts our society at risk.
If you are in U.K., you may need to migrate yourself. Your island is under threat by rising sea levels. Have you see the projections?
PlanDeRaccordement · 10/08/2021 13:07

And the idea that we should let it happen and deal with the catastrophic consequences.

We don’t have the power to stop it. It’s not about letting climate change happen. It’s about adapting and surviving it while saving as many humans and other species as we can.

NCwhatsmynameagain · 10/08/2021 13:10

@PlanDeRaccordement

It is inevitable now. Whether it was or wasn’t is irrelevant.

Yes, many countries have very low population density. USA, Russia, Canada for example. There is plenty of room to resettle people. I think we should do it. Just have governments offer free immigration visas to anyone in a “red zone” threatened by climate change and you’d see people choosing to immigrate. Isn’t it better to start moving these millions now and in an orderly fashion rather than wait for them to be desperate refugees fighting over evacuation spots and ending up in refugee camps dying in squalid conditions? We can do this humanely now, or wait and let millions die and only save a fraction. Hardly ridiculous to suggest.

It’s fun that you think countries like US, Russia and Canada and the rest of the world will not also face catastrophic consequences of climate change and will be able to support many many many millions of climate refugees. And how will everyone be fed and watered when we have droughts and floods that severely impact food production around the world? Etc etc. Why am I engaging! I’m going to stop now.
PlanDeRaccordement · 10/08/2021 13:15

@NCwhatsmynameagain
I never said they wouldn’t also face catastrophes, but you have to admit they’re not in danger of completely sinking into the sea unlike low lying pacific island actions are. Their entire existence is threatened. US, Canada and Russia are big continent sized well above sea level nations with low population density (so plenty of habitable and arable land) and the infrastructure and wealth to accept millions of immigrants successfully.

PlanDeRaccordement · 10/08/2021 13:21

how do you propose to deal with the severe worldwide drought and flooding?

In history climate change produces winners and losers. Kenya is no longer a desert for example. Russia and Canada now have whole tracts of previously frozen permafrost land that is now both habitable and arable. So on Earth while some places will be rendered uninhabitable, places previously uninhabitable are becoming habitable. When Alexandria sank into the sea, the Egyptians moved their capital to Cairo. So we move coastal capitals/major cities inland as well.
Governments have the powers to do this.

I’m not saying stop reducing carbon emission or any environmental protections. I’m saying do both. Keep reducing to minimise climate change but also start preparing for it and preventing mass refugee crises through offering free immigration programs for people in red zones to move to higher ground in the developed world.

Skybluepinkgiraffe · 10/08/2021 13:27

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@NCwhatsmynameagain
I never said they wouldn’t also face catastrophes, but you have to admit they’re not in danger of completely sinking into the sea unlike low lying pacific island actions are. Their entire existence is threatened. US, Canada and Russia are big continent sized well above sea level nations with low population density (so plenty of habitable and arable land) and the infrastructure and wealth to accept millions of immigrants successfully.[/quote]
Yes, I agree with your logic. I was listening to one of the scientists involved in the upcoming climate summit this morning. They have made projections for the future based on how we get on with reducing the overall temperature of the planet. If I understood correctly, best case scenario is a rise of 1.5c in the next few (30?) years, and could be over 2.5c.
There is work in progress to try to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and somehow Bury it in the ground. I don't fully understand, and the scientist himself said they are waiting on the technologies. There is work afoot to try to mitigate some of the damage, but none of it is simple.
My take away from it though, is even if they keep the temperature of the planet down to it's lowest projection, the glaciers will continue to melt for hundreds if not thousands of years, and they currently contain many metres worth of rising oceans.
So I can't see how the lower level countries can fail to be flooded. And there will be mass migration, loss of life, and all the rest.
There is hope, but there also needs to be an acceptance that this is inevitable and we need to try to work out, on a global level, how we will deal with it.

Skybluepinkgiraffe · 10/08/2021 13:51

*lower lying countries I meant

NCwhatsmynameagain · 10/08/2021 14:03

The clue is in the title. Code red for HUMANITY not just for low lying countries but the rest of us will be ok if we plan ahead. The worlds population will NOT be ok when those environmental impacts are felt. It will struggle with the very basics like clean air, water and food security, if the environment breaks down and biodiversity is lost. The chess pieces are not discrete they are all interlinked.
So it is not just a case of planning for the inevitable, we have to prevent it or accept that the entire population will eventually struggle to survive. I’m not sure how much more plain you want the science to be.

Skybluepinkgiraffe · 10/08/2021 14:10

@NCwhatsmynameagain we know this. I'm not sure what your point is. We can all do our bit, but it won't change the inevitable. We are relying on scientists to come up with something (and they are trying) but it requires funding and initiatives from the world leaders.

If we all just change our behaviour, individually, to more environmentally sound ways of living, we'll still be screwed by the loss of our economies, as well as the inevitable flooding. The efforts of individuals are laudable, but next to the power of climate change with all the dramatic weather conditions that go with it (monsoon rain/ fire/droughts etc) they are powerless.

VladmirsPoutine · 10/08/2021 14:13

So those who think the planet is over-populated, which areas or regions do you reckon we should impose child restrictions on? Hmm

BeetleyCarapace · 10/08/2021 14:32

@VladmirsPoutine

So those who think the planet is over-populated, which areas or regions do you reckon we should impose child restrictions on? Hmm
I think the planet is overpopulated but I wouldn’t put child restrictions on anywhere. I think the key to bringing birth rates down is in the emancipation of women and girls.
WinglessSonglessBird · 10/08/2021 14:38

It seems some of the biggest concerns are: humans as a whole having too many children, humans as a whole living way longer, too much stuff especially plastic, and too many toxic man-made chemicals--which includes the public consuming buying too much, but also a lot is on big corps.

As for too many kids: this is one of the bigger "elephants in the room" not many want to talk about it; it's taboo for some reason. I think too many humans believe it is a Right to have children, no matter what. It should be a privilege, though I don't have an answer for the best way to manage it. Society propagates this by endless social conditioning and by calling anyone who does not want children selfish, ffs.

Obviously humans are animals and wired to procreate. However humans are able to see the big picture, compared to other animals. I mean, if the deer population is too high what happens? Diseases, no food, death, maybe extinction. No earth animal can be so numerous that it snuffs out all its survival resources (food, water, space). Balance. Humans need to get over themselves; we are not that special. Maybe the Earth is telling humans that. Yo, you're part of the ecosystem like everything else.

As far as people living longer: I agree this is also a major issue, like someone said, too. And for what? Humans are now obsessed with quantity of life, not quality...even when people themselves want quality over quantity, they are forced to live. Humans have become soooo fearful of death. No we shouldn't be killing people, that's messed up. But why would anyone in their elder years if they are so sick etc want to be kept alive by "modern" medicine just to sit and exist in misery? To say they made it a few more years, in pain and suffering and depressed? The right to die campaign for like people over 70 or something would help this. Help them die humanely. btw, the keeping humans alive for as long as possible no matter what is not only the increased fear of death, but also businesses squeezing out money for as long as possible.

And humans need to culturally become better at accepting death. It's part of life. I think some native cultures even had a thing about dying well. And that nearing death/old age is a journey too, just like life. It's sadistic how we force people, usually old, to live when, if they want to, would be better off to be helped to process life/death and then helped to die peacefully. Death gets all; shouldn't we try and make it less of a horror? Humans have the potential do that, but don't. Warehousing people needs to stop. It's all about money, control, and some weird moral high-horse of you must live as long as possible no matter what or else. I mean, shit, animals are treated better. Think a horse with 3 broken legs. What do we do? kill it (humanely) cuz it will have no quality of life. Your dog has a serious illness, probably won't get better---put it down cuz that's nice. Humans though? Nah, they must suffer even if they would rather die. Plus, old people are shoved into some out of sight and mind corner of society, not valued, and forced to live in pain and misery and that's somehow doing no harm and moral?! Wow! Humanity sucks.

The trash, consuming etc: all these man-made chemicals are a huge problem but we are taught we need them. It's a vicious cycle: bunch of toxic chemicals in the food, water, air so then people get sick from them, and what is the solution? Buy more stuff and chemicals to "fix" it. Think of all the products aimed at ailments that are either probably caused by or made worse by modern chemicals and "modern" medicine.

Which the Pharma industry is big on this: humans ingest tons of toxic chemicals cuz that's life now and no avoiding it at this point, we're saturated in it, but then Pharma sells you more chemicals and companies sell you products of chemicals (in plastic) to fix it. And if you think Pharma wants people well? Rofl, sick people bring them billions of dollars!

Companies need to be regulated or forced more. We are told to stop using plastic. Ok, but some stuff is almost impossible to buy not in plastic. Not our fault. And stuff in glass bottles etc is often more expensive so what are the poor supposed to do? Companies only care about money. For example, a dentist told me once don't use hard bristle brushesbad for enamel, mouth health. Oh, ok. I said, why do the companies sell them then, certainly Crest etc would know? Answercuz people buy them, was dentist's reply. So don't buy them. Ok. But there are so many things we are trained to think we NEED. And in toothbrush case, shouldn't Crest etc do the right thing and just not make nor sell a product they know isn't even needed and actually is hurtful.

The West is trained to show love, appease boredom, fix self esteem, celebrate by buying a bunch of stuff. Consumer culture and throw away culture are big. Maybe the younger generations will teach their kids different values, see through the marketing etc.

And I doubt humans have the power (bar a nuclear holocaust) to literally kill off the whole planet. Other species would rise up when some die. It's sad, but life. Yes we need to stop our extreme impact, if possible. But tbh, the current way humans are is not sustainable and usually on earth huge changes cause suffering for lots of species; it just is, we need to mitigate that as much as possible.

The real issues of too many babies, forcing old people to live as long as possible when they don't want to with no quality plus warehoused and ignored and abused, and too much stuff and chemicals.

All those things are never actionably addressed. And bigger corps and govs do nothing about those. It can't be all on the average citizen either. And it needs to be faced that religion is also in the way, no offense meant, but the forcing people to live forever and to have tons of babies probably does stem from religion to some degree (go forth and multiply, humans are superior to all animals, death is bad so avoid at all costs). These attitudes aren't working out well. I wouldn't know how to change humanity's attitudes.

You know, sorry, but it could be at a point where we might have to accept that while the planet and humans might not literally die out, suffering and change has to happen. Consequences. Maybe the Earth is helping herself and humans with fires, diseases, etc and forcing humans to change cuz we are not capable, obviously, to. Harsh, but worth considering. I mean 8billion humans with many competing ideas, philosophies etc are probably never going to agree, on anything. Perhaps the Earth will step in and fix it for us, and no, it won't be all pretty but shit has consequences and unfortunately suffering happens on Earth, which the humans make 100x worse than even nature could do ffs, for themselves especially.

The blame game has to stop and literally look at the issues and accept that there is not gonna be a rosy, rainbow, happy, smooth sailing departure from our current mess to a better one.

I have no real solutions. I'm part of the problem too. We can all try our best to be part of the solution, but we aren't gonna be able to fully force others to, and I also think eventually humans are going to HAVE to rely on nature and not man-made stuff, and I say that as someone who likes lots of the tech etc and loathes being in nature. I actually hate nature and avoid the outdoors if I can, aside from a few aspects of nature I like, but I respect it, and realize we as human animals need it to live.

The real issues are taboo, and that seems much of the problem maybe?

LoveRoaig · 10/08/2021 14:44

Yes, cutting down on car traffic and encouraging cycling is the best way forward, I agree the government NEEDS to prioritise this

No I don't agree with this AT ALL.

It will be women who will, yet again, be unfairly affected by this. Cars allow women to move around freely, safely and independently. No way would I be cycling or taking the bus and walking a mile home in the dark from the bus stop on a night out nor would I want my dd doing this.

All that shrieking for reducing cars pisses me right off. Why? Because it will mean that more women are harmed by strangers and, as a consequence, restrict women's freedom of movement. It's dumb.