To ask what you think about global warming?

[deeedeee]

After seeing comments on other threads , I'm wondering, what do most people think?

Are you worried about man-made climate change?

Are you trying to change any of your behaviour because of it?

Or are you not concerned?

Food Co-ops? But that's a huge change, not a minor one.

I'd like to know what 'minor' changes would make a big difference.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about developing countries. There seems to be panic that when people start living to developed world standards then that will spell immediate disaster.
I cannot speak for every developing country and some are considerably better than others, but one thing I have noticed since I moved to a developing country is how aware they are of both global warming and the causes of it. The idea that everyone wants to follow the developed world is false. For my children aged 4-14 global warming, deforestation and renewable energy are a heavy part of the national curriculum with almost weekly science, social science or geography lessons having some aspect of these themes.

Most developing and even some less developed nations are heavily reliant on renewable energy, some almost completely. Colombia, Brazil and Paraguay get 82%, 83% and 99% of their energy from renewable sources. Compared with the USA 14%, UK 20% and Germany 32%. Canada is the highest in the developed world with 63% of it's energy coming from renewable sources, but far below most of the developing world. Many African countries are developing and expanding renewable energy, Ghana gets 68% and Angola gets 71% of it's energy from renewable sources. Even if you exclude biomass which can also be a polutant the developing world is still light years ahead in the renewable energy source stakes. Many do not want to rely on fossil fuels and many do not actually want to follow the developed world.
It's not always what you think

You know your lifestyle already dallas, so apologies for teaching you to suck eggs

But off the top of my head

Not using car when you can walk/ use public transport
Using reusable bags/cups/bottles etc
Refusing unnecessary packaging
Reusing things that you can
Mending rather than throwing away
Borrowing/buying second hand/making do instead of buying new
Changing energy suppliers
Not buying from companies/corporations/ banks that
Are involved or invest in deforestation/fossil fuels
Not using energy when you don't need to ( ie closing doors, putting on jumpers, line drying washing, saving water)
Eating less meat
Eating less imported out if season food
Wasting less food
Etc etc

You see deeedeee I do most of those things anyway bar the boycotting companies but I don't feel that they would have any impact at all really even if everyone in this country did them. My thinking is much more in line with banana bread, that we should innovate and adapt to the problems rather than trying to go backwards.

Ok, well most of that is common sense I think, so I can certainly feel happier about my 'not caring' standpoint!

I'm afraid I won't give up my tumble dryer though - step too far for me . A lot of the other stuff is automatic however, so I'm glad to see I'm 'making a difference' without even trying.

I will say though, for lots of people the bank/consumer goods and energy suppliers thing won't be a consideration as they need to go for whatever is cheapest/best for their family in the here and now. There's no point in picking an 'ethical' supplier for their kids future if it makes their present intolerable. In a lot of ways it's easier to be 'green' if you have the cash to compensate.

E.g. In my house we have far more home grown fruit and veg than shop bought - very 'green', but that's because we could afford to buy a house with a large garden, could afford to work less hours/have a SAHP to set it up and tend to it, could afford the start-up costs to get us going. If you live in a HA flat with little cash you are going to buy what's cheapest and easiest, which often means Iceland deliveries of frozen veg - not at all 'green'

So, worrying about the future is a luxury for lots of people. How can you be bothered to worry about 50 years from now if 5 minutes from now might mean no gas/electric or food/heating?

Great that you were both already doing more than you thought. Why the knee jerk reactions then? Why the assumption that the lifestyle changes necessary were too difficult to do?
It's not necessarily anymore expensive either. Yes it can be if you're the kind of person who chooses things as lifestyle choices and buys into branding and "quality" and exclusivity etc, you can spend a fortune on organic, local, "green" stuff. But if you just keep it simple and make good choices then it's not more expensive.

When I used to live in a flat on housing benefit it didn't cost me more to get a veg box delivered that ensured I cooked vegetarian meals each day, didn't cost me more to buy my rice and lentils and oats in bulk without packaging, didn't cost me more to change electricity supplier to a renewable source. In fact they all saved me money. This presumption that it's expensive to be "green" is wrong and dangerous. It's just a different habit to get into.

I think that the main barriers are mental. Are challenging societal norms that have built up over the past 40 years, that it's cheapskate to re gift or buy second hand, that buying a cup of coffee everyday and throwing away the cup is normal and a treat and that poor people are too stressed or poor to be able to live sustainably.

That is really interesting Saci and very heartening and inspiring.

That article about renewable energy in developing countries is very interesting Saci.

Meanwhile our government has just approved a third runway at Heathrow which is hardly going to help cut CO2 emissions.

deeedeee - because I suppose unlike you I don't think those minor lifestyle changes actually have any impact at all on the bigger picture.

What knee jerk reactions? You asked if people were worried about GW, I told you I wasn't. I'm still not.

I'm not convinced that a veg box delivery is cheaper or the same price as a frozen Iceland delivery though. They do 900g bags of broccoli, carrots, spinach, sprouts, peas etc for 99p each. That's a lot of meals worth for low cost. My neice only ever shopped at Iceland for that very reason, she never found anywhere cheaper and believe me, she would have tried.

Changing banks, probably doesn't cost, no, but different banks have different perks - for e.g. car breakdown cover or insurances. If you lose those perks you may need to pay for them elsewhere.

Changing energy suppliers - Well it may not cost to move, but we go with the cheapest every single year, currently with Ovo but if BG is cheaper next year we will swap. Our usage is extremely un-green (Aga) so we have no choice but to go with the cheapest supplier. We looked into Aga removal but that was going to cost us £4K. We are financially sound but can't pop that sort of cash out of our back pockets.

People with electric or gas meters often can't change or are charged over the odds for meter removal.

Look, I'm not purposely having a go, but you need to look further than your own circumstances to see that other people have different views/problems/issues that mean your way of living will not be possible. When you then patronise people or do the 'I feel sorry for your children' schtick saying that their kids are going to suffer because of the choices they have made - when often their choices aren't 'chosen' at all, all you do is alienate people (and I'm not saying that for my benefit, because it really isn't something I'm worrying about, but for others who might be reading this and feeling like dog shit right now)

You probably would have been better off with a thread that gave people ideas of little changes they could make, or big changes if they were able. Not this one.

you need to look further than your own circumstances to see that other people have different views/problems/issues that mean your way of living will not be possible.

I'm afraid I agree with this. I'm also in a position where I can buy ethically farmed meat and veg, but so many aren't. And yes, they have more pressing concerns day-to-day than to worry about climate change. Fair enough.

There was a climate scientist doing a Q&A on here a couple of years ago and she mentioned what Saci said about developing countries, how our progression does not need to be theirs - and that is heartening. Also, these countries are having to adapt massively to climate change right now, so there is a lot of movement at grassroots level that doesn't make the news.

(BTW: That was actually a really embarrassing Q&A as lots of people piled on with faux science saying climate change wasn't a thing...)

I would argue that it's not EITHER we take change individually OR we do it collectively, but that the former is essential to building the latter.

And, of course, any financial burden should fall on those able to pay and not on the poorest. (There is evidence that the poorest contribute less to climate change than middle class "ethical" consumers. Which tells you something important about consumption). But "able to pay" does not just mean those with disposable income. It also means those who are overstretched due to greed.

I'm as bad as the next person. I'm not setting myself up as some paragon here. There is loads more I could do. But I do recognise that, even as someone with a diagnosis of infertility that means I can't have kids, my actions have consequences for future generations and I have a responsibility to YOUR kids to make sure I do my bit.

There are changes that everyone in any circumstances can make. Not buying plastic tat and chucking it away after one use for example.

Some things are more challenging than others definately, and some circumstances definately make it harder for people to think about these kind of choices. But there are still choices there in every situation.

The way some people initially responded to this thread (ie- don't care. Won't effect me. Not going to change my behaviour) is wrong and suggested selfishness ignorance and apathy.

There is fault on both sides of the argument.

I also don't agree that individuals making small changes won't make a difference.

It will teach their children to do things differently.

It'll signal to government that public opinion is changing and therefore make them change their policies.

and also these changes will change society eventually, and that'll change the behaviour of corporations.

Changes do happen you know.

( thanks for this debate everyone. Really good to be able to discuss all this with so many folk with different knowledge and opinions. Hopefully interesting reading )

Oh I definitely agree that we can all make a difference, whether we're rich or poor.

But look at the UK today: millions accessing food banks, benefits being cut - so many people are living hand to mouth and their priorities are on today/this week. I'm not surprised many don't care about climate change.

Is climate change/resource use etc something that children are learning about in UK schools?

Is climate change/resource use etc something that children are learning about in UK schools?

Only if you get individual teachers who are interested in teaching about it IME. Some of the lack of knowledge about environmental issues in the school I taught at was er, surprising. Putting it politely.

Silent - I'm the last person to criticise anyone using a food bank for thinking about anything, other than where the next meal is coming from.

But I don't think we're really talking about those people. I doubt that many of the people saying they don't give a flying shit on this thread are in that position. In fact, I suspect that many of them have household incomes that exceed the average, sometimes by a considerable margin.

(I reckon, and this is just a hunch, that 80% of Mumsnet is drawn from the top 50% of the population in income terms (median household income for 2 adults = £23, 500), making it a distinctly unrepresentative place).

The wider problem with the relation between the personal and the political is one of will. At the moment, a great proportion of the population is waiting for leaders to lead, and a great number of the leaders are waiting for the population to signal that change is acceptable to them. It's like a democratic catch 22: politicians won't take change, because it'll be unpopular and they'll lose their seats. The public won't demand change because they think that if it's that bad, leaders will force them to change. This is why effecting change at the personal level as well as agitating for it at a political level matters: it demonstrates commitment, it speaks to capital and to politicians, and it says that the person is ready for the challenging policy that's needed.

When so many people look at the facts, the emotion they register is shock: shock that the hour is so late, and that so little has been done. I think many people think climate change is something that will hit in the very distant future, in 200 years time, say. But it isn't. It's here now. We're talking about the future of the kids who are in preschool this second, real life, living, breathing human beings. (And we still have a responsibility to their children, yet unborn). We're talking about potential impacts on living beings that are morally akin to some kind of holocaust. It really isn't something from which we can turn away, however difficult the decisions are that we need to take.

So do those who questioned the fact that climate change will have an impact in the UK in our lifetime or our children's lifetimes now accept it will? You asked for concrete facts last night, and when given them didn't respond.

(I reckon, and this is just a hunch, that 80% of Mumsnet is drawn from the top 50% of the population in income terms (median household income for 2 adults = £23, 500), making it a distinctly unrepresentative place).

That thread not long ago about disposable incomes - I didn't do an exact count, but was struck by the prevelance of two particular brackets, those with £250 pcm or less, and those with £4000. I wonder if those in the middle and lower middle - especially £400-£800, who seemed oddly unrepresented (I think a lot of people I know would be in that bracket) - have less free time to post. Or perhaps it was by its nature not the sort of thread they'd be drawn to.

People who are poor and highly educated (whether autodidact or formally), are in my personal experience the most conscientious about boycotts, and being ethical about a significant proportion of the few purchases they make, more so than those on middle incomes. Deedee's post about buying veg boxes when on benefits rang true to me in that context.

Really appreciated the article about energy in developing countries, Saci. Thanks.
I think the countries where wanting western lifestyles is more of "a thing" are the BRICS countries, the rapidly up and coming economies often involved in manufacturing stuff for north american and european markets, those who work in offshored call centres etc. Inequality grates a lot more when it's shoved in your face all the time. Whereas if all that stuff is so far away from you and those you see day to day, for many it may as well be fairytales.

I'm not sure there are many things I do solely to be green. (Though a recent one is no more acrylic knitwear to be acquired: www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/27/washing-clothes-releases-water-polluting-fibres-study-finds )
A lot of "green" living for me is connected with other ideas, like a wish to connect with bits and pieces of historical living and older ways of doing things, or being pleased that I can actually be robust about some things I used to feel I was much softer about than my parents' generation (e.g. not wasting food, or using the heating less. To which latter end I now think it's important to make sure everyone in the household has warm clothing they're comfortable with and that scratchy jumpers aren't getting at low-level sensory sensitivities.) And then there's stuff I grew up doing and never knew any different until adulthood - I still find it bizarre that there are actually people who put usable clothing in the bin.

Saci do you mean renewable electricity rather than energy? U.K. Is nowhere near 20% for renewable energy!

If anyone's interested in continuing the discussion on a dedicated climate change topic, would you mind popping over here and registering your interest?

Thank you!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2764769-Please-can-we-have-a-climate-change-topic?

Saci Most of Costa Rica, Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil's renewable energy is hydroelectric - so we will need bigger rivers. We also use twice as much as them (industry and lifestyle) so not really comparable.

Regarding the question of income disparity, 10:10 says that 15% of the British population (presumably a relatively wealthy subset) account for 70% of flights, and that more than half of Britons don't fly at all in any given year.

We also use twice as much as them

Not really actutally, but the UK produces more green house gases and if you consider its size, population and the fact that it has far less agriculture than countries like Brazil and Argentina, then it really is time for change.

Also overuse is a massive part of the problem. The standard of living for most people in those four countries is high and yet they manage that on far less than the developed world. They do not have starving masses and large portions of the population living without electricity and running water. In fact 99.8% of Argentinians, 99.5% of Brazilians, 99.5% of Costa Ricans and 98.2% of Paraguans have electricity in their homes. The energy deficit is being met with wind power, it is growing with the aim to provide 100% of the population with 100% renewable energy. Judging by the number of wind turbines I see being transported every week here in Brazil I can quite see it will happen.

Interestingly people talk about not worrying about climate change when they need to worry where the next meal is coming from. I live in rural Brazil, I know many people either on benefits or who have daily concerns for meeting living costs. They are concerned about climate change for one very crucial reason. Here in the Southern Hemisphere we are seeing the effects, we are living them and they are a very real threat. There's no chance of burying your head in the sand. If people in the Northern Hemisphere continue to bury their heads in the sand then they will en masse continue being the problem and pretty soon they will start being affected as well. I only hope, when that happens, it's not too late to do something about it!