Climate change... Its political.

[Bipbopboo66]

I am 47.
I did a biology degree. We were taught all about what would happen if the temperature increased, if humans carried on burning fossil fuels.

But nobody did anything because politics is short term.
All you do is keep your voters on side.

Its been known for year and years that we are damaging out planet.

And now.. Oo shock...
I dispair.

It's tricky, isn't it, @Malin52? People will churn out children, while more climate concerned people won't, perhaps. Personally I wouldn't have kids now, knowing what I know, and I worry for my grandchildren. Life isn't going to be easy for them.
And yet...if everyone was to stop having children, where would we be? China had a one child per family strategy for years, and that came home to roost with a mostly male young population who are now struggling to find women to have children with. Now they are encouraging families to have 3 children.
Who will look after our ageing population, or would we be wise to put our olds 'out of their misery ' as per some dystopian novels, or simply not care for them so they just die out? We need the younger ones to be keeping the economy going to fund all the environmentally positive projects too. Uk fertility is falling already and it's likely we'll need to increase immigration to work here.
The point I'm really trying to make is that while those of us that are able could and should do what they can to reduce their personal footprint, it really is not as simple as it seems on a global level.
I'm just throwing my thoughts out there - I don't know the answer, but I'm certain the talk around climate change is all full of contradiction and compromises.

It's incredibly hard to live in the world as it is, make a living etc, and look to our own futures, without doing things that have a bad environmental impact.
If we look to saving our species as a whole, rather than in an individualistic way, there are going to be losses of life along the way. If individuals think only of themselves, the species is fucked.
It's a conundrum.

You are exactly right @Skybluepinkgiraffe but yet again it's a case of people having kids but thinking it's someone else's problem to deal with.

I think we might have to go down the dystopian route if I'm honest as the alternatives are even worse! I dont have kids by choice and frankly if when the time comes when the oldies are the problem then I'm happy to put my hand up as we all should if it means better outcomes.

I just think that most people don't realise that adding another consumer to the world is by far the worst thing we can do for climate change. I have many friends who claim to be huge environmentalists and pontificate about reduce, reuse, recycle but it's limited to being smug about bringing their own cups to a coffee takeout and yet the three children they have and more on the way doesn't register as being an issue. Nor the 'oh I tried reuseable nappies but it's a pain' while filing up landfill yet being judgy about having a Nespresso machine.

We need to make it clear that having children is a massive environmental problem and hope that people take the baton. We need to give tax breaks to child free people for example rather than the other way round to discourage it.

As a PP said though this isn't going to happen. Politics is based on current tenure and no government is ever going to do this as economies are built on GDP and more consumers is better for that.

Pretty sure I read that halving the world population is the only way to address this. That means two people having one child only on average and the vast majority having none to cover those that will create two, three or more. Risk is that western countries end up with no population and 'developing' countries with them all!

Absolutely @Malin52
It's why I've got a little bit resigned to it all. I also resent Extinction Rebellion for blaming my generation - boomer- as in my experience many of us did and have made an effort, and a lot of younger people are making poor decisions still.
Not that I don't love ER in general. I have so much time for what they are trying to achieve, but I'm thinking more of the current age group still chatting on MN about having lots of kids and what umpteen presents they should give them at Christmas.
So, if it weren't for my grandchildren, I probably wouldn't really care, if I'm honest.
I maintain, the planet will look after itself, its whether the poor thing can sustain a hideously arrogant human race.

I also think we need to realise that if this IS to change then economies will need to change and may look totally different

Immigration and global mobility could be the answer but we would need to reduce our industries accordingly. For example key services may need to be reduced (health care, schooling, council services), shops closed, farming reduced according to the reduction in population. We may especially as oldies in later years, need to suck up that health care won't be there for us because we don't have the people to support it and deal with the fact that prolonging/supporting life is no longer an option.

Sounds awful and smacks of eugenics but it feels like it might need to be a reality.

We need to realise that humans are not sacrosanct and in fact have no beneficial impact on the planet. If we want the Earth to continue in all of its rich beauty humans are the only one who have ruined it and the only ones to save it. It will continue without us but cannot continue with us in our present number. So we may have sacrifice ourselves and especially our own innate desire to procreate to allow Earth to live on.

I think you and I could be friends @Malin52

Re your last sentence, I think Earth will do fine by itself though. We're bound to get bigger and nastier pandemics, well probably all have to migrate to to fires and floods, chances are food production will grind to a halt, along with health care.
Unless massive changes are made, and very soon.

@Skybluepinkgiraffe I think the much maligned 'boomer' generation were the last to be true environmentalists! Most are 'make do and mend' mentality and are careful about food and energy waste. Look at the threads on AIBU about older parents' cold houses, small portions or 'miserly' gifts!

My generation (gen x) and those after are the worst for wastage. The desire for consumption, material goods, heat, throwaway fashion, excess at Xmas, white goods that use excessive power and water, endless plastic toys that aren't looked at, car journeys, several car families, disposable everything, overseas travel and all the things we demand as standard 'necessities' have been the main contributors.

I completely agree about the global emancipation of women. Its absolutely the right thing to do.

DF had a long enginerring career in oil and gas (among other worthy projects like retroviral drugs for HIV) and thinks hydrogen cars are the way forward as the only by product is water. Electric cars themselves have a host of issues around the battery etc.

And yet Gen X and beyond believe ourselves to be so environmentally aware because we separate the wine bottles (flown in from Australia) for recycling from the food waste...

@Malin52

And yet Gen X and beyond believe ourselves to be so environmentally aware because we separate the wine bottles (flown in from Australia) for recycling from the food waste...

Such a clear example of the hypocrisy and mixed messaging.

@MistySkiesAfterRain

I completely agree about the global emancipation of women. Its absolutely the right thing to do.

DF had a long enginerring career in oil and gas (among other worthy projects like retroviral drugs for HIV) and thinks hydrogen cars are the way forward as the only by product is water. Electric cars themselves have a host of issues around the battery etc.

Yes, and going back to @Bipbopboo66 thread title, politicians of all stripes need to listen to the scientists and give them proper funding.

@MistySkiesAfterRain

I completely agree about the global emancipation of women. Its absolutely the right thing to do.

DF had a long enginerring career in oil and gas (among other worthy projects like retroviral drugs for HIV) and thinks hydrogen cars are the way forward as the only by product is water. Electric cars themselves have a host of issues around the battery etc.

That's really interesting, my dad holds similar views on hydrogen too. He reckons that electric will be a stopgap for a bit, until hydrogen/fuel cell tech catches up and becomes more viable.

And yet we all know that the biggest individual impact we can have personally is not to have children I disagree with this actually, at least to some extent. Overpopulation alone is not causing climate change. India is one of the most overpopulated nations on the planet yet still has a relatively low carbon footprint per capita, although it is increasing. It's increasing due to change of lifestyle and technology.
My children are being raised to respect the environment and will always have a rather lower environmental impact than international jet-setters. While I respect the other viewpoint, perhaps most famously made by Gerald Durrell, I don't think it's a good idea to leave reproduction to those who don't recognise the importance of ecology. I think it's important to recognise that it is wealth and conspicuous consumption (and dare I say the constant push for new technology when old tech does the job as well or better?) driving climate change, not just population alone.

Pickup a pepper, the issue is that India has a lower carbon footprint as so many live in poverty - would you condemn people to poverty just to maintain the low footprint? It will take much lower birthrates for India and many African countries to manage the higher living standards their populations want and deserve, while tackling the climate crisis. Pps suggesting empowerment of women is key are spot on.

Tbh, it doesn't matter which way you slice and dice it, every person on the planet has a carbon footprint. Even if you raise your family to be eco conscious they still need feeding, clothing, housing, educating etc. You can't do that without impacting the environment.

Not really.

You have the biggest polluter, China, and the political system there is different.

They can and do plan longterm, they aren't worried about winning elections, but they still won't address the climate issue.

Pickup a pepper, the issue is that India has a lower carbon footprint as so many live in poverty - would you condemn people to poverty just to maintain the low footprint?

As I said, I think it is more complicated than that. Is sustainable living living automatically living in poverty? I don't agree. To take an extreme example I don't view needing to have 2 dishwashers and a chelsea tractor per adult as sustainable, nor do I view a lack of those as poverty. It is generally the rich in all countries who are living unsustainably (including in India and China), far more so than the poorer groups in each country (including the UK).
There is also the point that western birth rates have been falling for years. I do agree that both the UK and the Earth are overpopulated, but not that all children are anti-environmental.

Fwiw, I think housing costs and the poor quality of the housing stock in the UK has had a huge impact on my carbon footprint, and by extension on that of my generation (x, mid-40s). Being forced to live in private rented accommodation of course we had no options to make any environmentally-friendly alterations. We bought only in our 40s and will be paying a mortgage until retirement age, so will have no funds free to make improvements. We took up renewable energy tariffs as soon as we had any choice in the matter, even in rented houses, and would have loved to be able to take up our own energy production. I doubt our exploitative greedy landlords did as much, I know very well that no landlords pay for energy production on their rental houses. House improvements like insulation or power generation have never been an option, and are unlikely to be so in the future. Household energy consumption is a big driver of the UKs CO2 emissions.

In fact I was just googling for figures on that, and found this. www.theccc.org.uk/2019/02/21/uk-homes-unfit-for-the-challenges-of-climate-change-ccc-says/

Consumerism generally and encouraging the greed of the rich has been the driver of climate change, and what has been bad news for society as a whole has been bad news for the environment.

Agree re housing stock - there is a new estate of several hundred houses being built in our town, crammed in, not even a nod to sustainability, houses that have a life expectancy of 70 years or so.

There should be no houses being built that are not at least to 'passivhaus' standard.

well put @BeetleyCarapace, my dh an engineer says the same.
west coast fires are partially due to miss management of the forest due to lack of funding.

politicians are happy to claim it is "climate" change to avoid focus on the two decades of inaction in cleaning up debris, controlled burns, fire brakes around villages and building codes.

How can people take this seriously while our government is actively encouraging travel, spending etc

^^ This. The government is encouraging unnecessary commuting to offices because it is worried about the loss in value of massively expensive air conditioned, lit up 24/7, city centre office space, and reduction in people buying single use packaged prepared food and coffee from the likes of Pret when many people can work just as effectively at home , make their own coffee, have leftovers for lunch and put a jumper on when it gets cold in winter.

@Bipbopboo66

The political bit is no one talks about the main drivers.

Population growth and consumerism.

We need to control population. And make things that last with a right to repair.

And do all the other stuff too.

I agree. I'm currently studying sustainability for a degree. There are tons of easily made changes to be done. But it involves investment. Finance departments wince at spending on infrastructure.

The whole western world is based on capitalism fueled by poor wage earning countries. So people need to stop consuming, which won't happen because money is involved, makes me so angry that the world burns while a silly man takes a totally unnecessary flight into space and that WE have made him that well off.

Recycling is a joke. The uk export it to other countries to be burnt we are one of the worst offenders. LED lights touted as energy saving now last no longer than incandescent lamps so where is the saving in carbon if the consumer still has to keep buying them?

Ultimately there needs to be less people in the world. Billions less people. We could all consume the bare minimum but at some point there will be more people than the earth can feed.

Stop having babies. Raising kids to be environmentally aware isn't nearly enough.

Plus, what kind of world are we bringing our children into, suffering and hardship because of climate change.

I'm childfree by choice because of environmental reasons but I get laughed at and scorned at for it. Meanwhile, the planet is dying.

Simple.

Hmm pic not the best. Maybe this one.

Did this work?