Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Chat

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

With forest fires burning across Europe and another heatwave on the horizon, how much are you personally willing to change your lifestyle for future generations?

262 replies

Chocolatefreak · Yesterday 20:19

Genuine question for discussion purposes. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you believe tackling climate change and environmental degradation is a shared responsibility, involving not only governments and corporations but also individuals.

With that in mind, how much would you personally be willing to change your lifestyle if it meant giving future generations, including your children and grandchildren, a better chance of living on a stable, healthy planet?

For example, would you be willing to:

a) Dramatically reduce your consumption of meat and dairy, so that more agricultural land could be used to grow food directly for people rather than feed livestock?
b) Restrict air travel and most car journeys to occasions where they are genuinely necessary?
c) Stop buying more than you need, only getting clothing, gadgets, and other consumables only when they are genuinely necessary rather than for convenience or entertainment?

If not, where would you draw the line? What changes would you consider reasonable, and which would you consider asking too much?

OP posts:
abracadabra1980 · Yesterday 22:08

marbIecake · Yesterday 20:39

I'll do my bit where it makes sense.

Frankly though, what I'm utterly sick and tired of is the implication that the future of the planet depends mainly on whether ordinary people have the occasional burger or holiday, while those with the greatest influence escape the same level of scrutiny.

You asked for honesty.

100% agree with this. Also, as the majority of folk on Mumsnet seem to be southern-I can hand on heart say that most people I encounter in the north east-mainly professionals, care very little on a personal level about global warming being something they can actually do much about, until the likes of China and India fall into line - the UK's 1% contribution to global warming bears no relevance in daily life.

Purplebunnie · Yesterday 22:09

I reuse old plastic bottles to collect run off water if I need hot water I collect cold water until it runs hot and use run off for watering plants/hand washing etc,

Solar panels, one electric car, pay very little for electricity overall and have paid for any over the summer. Most importantly have not used the planets resources to run my home and have exported to the grid so other people are using less from the planet, although they don't know that

I have a very old diesel car which has now offset it's original carbon footprint build. It goes out a couple of times a month, use the electric wherever possible

Use shampoo and conditioner bars and we have an Eco Egg for the washing machine

Eat chicken occasionally, everything else is plant based. Have bought a veg trug and we are growing salad crops etc. Only just got this so not got the hang of it yet

Haven't flown for 10 years

Haven't bought any new clothes for over 12 months, have bought some new shoes

I'm sure there is more I could do I expect MN will tell me😂

Branster · Yesterday 22:09

I am not at all convinced that being vegetarian or vegan has such a positive impact on the environment as it is implied to have. All that nut milk for a start, energy intensive to produce.
For sure is better than the alternative, but it is not the answer.
The problem is, people in the developed world purchase too much food. A lot of it gets thrown away. This is shameful and I am guilty of it myself.
The producers create as much food as demand there is.
What we need is people to enjoy a clean balanced diet, which is not heavy on meat consumption.
What we also need is for laws and regulations to completely ban intensive meat production which is not looking after the welfare of animals. Yes, meat prices will go up. So what? Buy less of it but you know the animals have been responsibly raised. Basically we need to drastically reduce the number of animals raised for food consumption. Which is not going to happen.
We also need to do away with all this nonsense packaging. It’s ridiculous how everything is packaged using so many materials. Even the ink used to write on packaging is incredibly damaging for the environment from the moment it is being produced at the first stage of pigments. The recycling itself is definitely not without its own problems in terms of transport and energy consumption. And a lot of what we send to be recycled is actually unsustainable for recycling.

World-wide, poor communities are the only ones being truly green because of necessity. In a fair world, those people and children should have access to commodities and comfort as much as anyone else and they should benefit from new technologies as well. Why shouldn’t they?

My perception is that the biggest consumption of energy is spent making stuff and cleaning stuff on an industrial scale. We need to make less stuff. It’s not going to happen.
Most importantly, we need to stop destroying natural habitats all over the world. Stop cutting down forests (and stop mining). I think this is the biggest issue.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Lzzyisgod · Yesterday 22:10

SummerFeverVenice · Yesterday 21:52

Southern Europe where they put up solar farms the sheep still graze the field and use the panels as shade. Also most of southern Europe is putting solar farms in car parks. Keeps the cars sheltered. There are smart ways to mix the use of space and land.

We are going to have a lot of sheep grazing then where they've never grazed before.

I'm not against solar by any means- I think sustainable power is the way to go and we shiukd back it. But we can't argue that changing our eating habits will save agricultural land when we are building (ok not houses) on previously farmed land.

The scale is enormous in Lincolnshire. Until I saw it I didn't really understand it but we drove past the lastest one today (small by comparison to one that has been approved) and it's mile upon mile of farmland, not just car park size and not that anyone would park their car there.

Chocolatefreak · Yesterday 22:10

GeneralPeter · Yesterday 22:05

Yes it can be, if the wrong schemes (poorly verified, not truly incremental). But it’s also true that many parts of the world are far behind us in carbon removal/substitution and much poorer than us, and that supporting those places to decarbonise is a much better way to remove carbon cheaply than trying to do it here.

There is also a cultural aversion to market-based solutions in the environmental movement that I think is often at the root of opposition. It feels like cheating, it feels like buying indulgences, so it’s rejected by those for whom climate is a big moral issue. The issue is that: just because something hurts doesn’t mean it’s effective, plus many people just don’t want to sacrifice personal convenience, so you are pushing at a closed door beyond a certain point (even though they may be willing to offset multiples).

We have finite resources, and there is a limit to how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere can safely absorb. So therefore carbon offsetting makes no sense, since it doesn't reduce either of those things.

What would work is an individual carbon budget, for people to spend on what they wanted. E.g. eating meat OR driving a car OR flying once a year.

OP posts:
Tel12 · Yesterday 22:12

The issue is that it really doesn't matter how many toilet rolls we recycle it all comes down to government policies. The need for sustainability needs to be international but look whose really running things and it's clear there's no appetite. Our own government calls for growth when we have finite resources. We are giving the green light for more oil drilling despite the fact it's not going to make much difference to us. We're building over green spaces, new houses are poorly insulated
I could go on.......

LagerLady · Yesterday 22:13

SummerFeverVenice · Yesterday 22:08

Time for your bedtime medication methinks.

Wait and see then. The tech bros are planning our demise.

deepseaargyllfish · Yesterday 22:14

I have had no children, so I feel I’ve saved the earth 70-80 years of someone stamping carbon footprints all over it, and spared the earth from that non-child’s potential several offspring.

For this reason I feel I have banked enough credits to to do the things i really want to do (within reason… I still have an environmental conscience).

crackofdoom · Yesterday 22:15

Branster · Yesterday 22:09

I am not at all convinced that being vegetarian or vegan has such a positive impact on the environment as it is implied to have. All that nut milk for a start, energy intensive to produce.
For sure is better than the alternative, but it is not the answer.
The problem is, people in the developed world purchase too much food. A lot of it gets thrown away. This is shameful and I am guilty of it myself.
The producers create as much food as demand there is.
What we need is people to enjoy a clean balanced diet, which is not heavy on meat consumption.
What we also need is for laws and regulations to completely ban intensive meat production which is not looking after the welfare of animals. Yes, meat prices will go up. So what? Buy less of it but you know the animals have been responsibly raised. Basically we need to drastically reduce the number of animals raised for food consumption. Which is not going to happen.
We also need to do away with all this nonsense packaging. It’s ridiculous how everything is packaged using so many materials. Even the ink used to write on packaging is incredibly damaging for the environment from the moment it is being produced at the first stage of pigments. The recycling itself is definitely not without its own problems in terms of transport and energy consumption. And a lot of what we send to be recycled is actually unsustainable for recycling.

World-wide, poor communities are the only ones being truly green because of necessity. In a fair world, those people and children should have access to commodities and comfort as much as anyone else and they should benefit from new technologies as well. Why shouldn’t they?

My perception is that the biggest consumption of energy is spent making stuff and cleaning stuff on an industrial scale. We need to make less stuff. It’s not going to happen.
Most importantly, we need to stop destroying natural habitats all over the world. Stop cutting down forests (and stop mining). I think this is the biggest issue.

Most of the Amazon rainforest that has been destroyed has been cleared for

a) cattle ranching
b) growing soya, nearly all of which becomes animal feed.

Hence* why eating less meat- if not becoming fully vegetarian/vegan- does have a crucial role to play in combating climate change.

*Not an exhaustive list of the planet- harming effects of animal agriculture, but I'm knackered.

Sdmfn · Yesterday 22:15

Chocolatefreak · Yesterday 21:34

No, it's not. But tourism has been marketed as a status symbol and so people continue to fly to long haul destinations for very little purpose other than to take photos and say yeah, I had that experience, without it truly being enjoyable. Again, I cite queues - getting to the airport, flying, passport control, arranging tickets and travel insurance and all that crap, for an expensive and often fairly meaningless experience.

Immerse yourself in the culture, see the sights and experience new things. The same way I enjoy a trip to Edinburgh. I enjoy a trip to Lake Como or to see a mountain in Switzerland. Or the same way I enjoy seeing world heritage sites when I go back to India. And how my kids enjoy seeing where I grew up, where DH and I met and going to the same eateries I went to in my youth.

Yes queues, travel to the airport, flying and passport control are all things I'm mentally able to handle. Are you?

If that's your whole view on travelling and holidays maybe just stay at home 🤷‍♀️

JennyForeigner · Yesterday 22:16

GeneralPeter · Yesterday 21:53

Why not fly and triple-offset?

a. Carbon effect of staying at home: 0 (for simplicity)

b. Carbon effect of flying economy return, London-Bordeaux, family of four: +0.8 tonnes.

c. Carbon effect of flying, with triple-offsetting: -1.6 tonnes.

c is clearly better for the environment than a. If carbon footprint is a matter of morality, c is more moral than a.

(Cost of the triple-offset, about £65. £100-200 if you really want to gold-plate the offsetting. Bordeaux is pricey but £200 is easily recoverable for a family of four if you fly somewhere that’s cheaper than Scotland. If you do that four times a year your family would be real climate heroes).

Edited

Because it would be 40 degrees when we got there, and what used to be sunflower farms and rivers are now parched and brown. The change around what used to be our family is very striking and very sad.

And also because I don't want to get on a plane and implicitly validate the whole business. That's like telling myself I can buy from temu but as long as I donate to charity it's fine. It is not fine.

SummerFeverVenice · Yesterday 22:16

Lzzyisgod · Yesterday 22:10

We are going to have a lot of sheep grazing then where they've never grazed before.

I'm not against solar by any means- I think sustainable power is the way to go and we shiukd back it. But we can't argue that changing our eating habits will save agricultural land when we are building (ok not houses) on previously farmed land.

The scale is enormous in Lincolnshire. Until I saw it I didn't really understand it but we drove past the lastest one today (small by comparison to one that has been approved) and it's mile upon mile of farmland, not just car park size and not that anyone would park their car there.

I agree changing eating habits won’t save agricultural land, either in the UK or elsewhere.

The only land available in the UK to build more houses on is agricultural land. The UK has the 35th highest population density in the world with a population density of 748 people per square mile, compared to the average of 144.1 people in other countries. 83.3% of people in the UK live in an urban area.
https://georank.org/population-density/united-kingdom

Tel12 · Yesterday 22:17

Oh yes and we're building Ai data centres in areas that are already short of water despite the need for hundreds of thousands of gallons of water to run. That's where the priorities are, screw the planet.

crackofdoom · Yesterday 22:18

Sdmfn · Yesterday 22:15

Immerse yourself in the culture, see the sights and experience new things. The same way I enjoy a trip to Edinburgh. I enjoy a trip to Lake Como or to see a mountain in Switzerland. Or the same way I enjoy seeing world heritage sites when I go back to India. And how my kids enjoy seeing where I grew up, where DH and I met and going to the same eateries I went to in my youth.

Yes queues, travel to the airport, flying and passport control are all things I'm mentally able to handle. Are you?

If that's your whole view on travelling and holidays maybe just stay at home 🤷‍♀️

Yes, so important that your DC get to see the Swiss glaciers before they disappear completely.

Be sure to have a lively discussion with them on why they're disappearing eh.

SummerFeverVenice · Yesterday 22:18

crackofdoom · Yesterday 22:15

Most of the Amazon rainforest that has been destroyed has been cleared for

a) cattle ranching
b) growing soya, nearly all of which becomes animal feed.

Hence* why eating less meat- if not becoming fully vegetarian/vegan- does have a crucial role to play in combating climate change.

*Not an exhaustive list of the planet- harming effects of animal agriculture, but I'm knackered.

That is more for Mexico, USA and Canada (ie the Americas) rather than the UK.
Meat consumption here, doesn’t affect the Amazon.

Mespher · Yesterday 22:18

DontrockthecaravanGeoffrey · Yesterday 21:38

Interesting first ever post on MN.

They may have name changed, do you always check up on posters.

Sdmfn · Yesterday 22:18

SummerFeverVenice · Yesterday 21:38

It’s actually a form of torture. Humans can’t survive in isolation in a room. We go mad.

And yet they locked the whole world down for over a year.

Lizziewest88 · Yesterday 22:19

Vegetarian for 15 years. 2 kids they eat meat but low level consumption. Electric car. Try and walks to the shops instead of using car. Haven’t been on a plane in 7 years. Recycle. I don’t think I can personally do more.

SummerFeverVenice · Yesterday 22:20

Tel12 · Yesterday 22:17

Oh yes and we're building Ai data centres in areas that are already short of water despite the need for hundreds of thousands of gallons of water to run. That's where the priorities are, screw the planet.

This is so important. No one I know likes AI and yet all the technocrats and their puppet sock politicians are funnelling tons of resources towards these bots. It’s wrecking the planet at super speed.

Sherararara · Yesterday 22:20

Well, I’m seriously considering getting AC. Does that count?

SummerFeverVenice · Yesterday 22:20

Sdmfn · Yesterday 22:18

And yet they locked the whole world down for over a year.

Edited

Ha that’s an exaggeration. No one was stuck in one room completely alone for a year.

crackofdoom · Yesterday 22:20

SummerFeverVenice · Yesterday 22:18

That is more for Mexico, USA and Canada (ie the Americas) rather than the UK.
Meat consumption here, doesn’t affect the Amazon.

Edited

Sure about that are you?

What do you know about how the pork and chicken you eat is raised- and where the feed for those pigs and chickens comes from?

LagerLady · Yesterday 22:22

There are too many humans on the planet.

JemimaTiggywinkles · Yesterday 22:22

Loads of us already do this because we can’t afford to live any other way. The problem is that those who are super consumers aren’t going to change any time soon. So I’m not giving up my occasional steak or once every 4 years new iPad.

HeneralClux · Yesterday 22:22

Interesting question OP. Our family has made lots of switches and continues to look for more swirches and changes to make. I feel though that keeping pressure on politicians and showing them that this is an important issue for us is the only way we will preserve the planet. Whilst there are individuals consuming at unsustainable rates with no checks, my solar panels, vegetarian diet, UK camping and train rides are a drop in the ocean!