Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To feel like it’s too late to stop environmental disaster?

151 replies

greatandpowerfulozma · 06/05/2019 21:48

Just that really. I feel like people won’t change in time to stop it. Meh.

OP posts:
Rain0ntheW1nd0w · 08/05/2019 14:05

In a future world where all transport is electric & every house has solar power. I predict that there will be something that will be polluting the world
Similarly, people who don't eat meat. I've read that some foreign companies are already farming insects to produce protein on a large scale, because it's quicker & cheaper than say beef. Is that what people want for their future food ?

TheFastandCurious · 08/05/2019 14:20

TheAbc

As a mother of a child who was discovered after the abortion limit and having met another woman at work who has a son to similar circumstances I’d have to say it’s not a red herring. Both of us were using statistically very effective contraception, properly. (I can vouch for myself only on that of course)

As parenting is so tough I think many parents of multiples have either twins or accidents.

I observed from the ‘unpopular opinions’ thread that the majority of people believe mums are lying when they say contraception failed. I did too until it happened to me. So given that, I wonder how people on here specifically wanting a two child policy implemented would like to see it enforced. After all, you can only sanction somebody once they have gone over the limit.

I wonder if there will come a time my youngest will be subject to abuse for ‘being born’ as the anger toward climate change increases.

nowseeherefella · 08/05/2019 15:21

ParrotwithaCarrot

Pretty much everybody on this thread who has said that people need to have less children have also said that this is not going to be possible to enforce. I don't think a single person who has contributed to this thread thinks that forced abortion is a possible strategy.

I don't think there is anything wrong though in starting by educating young people about the impact of a growing population, meaning that they can make their own informed choices about the number of children they have and factor in environmental impact to this decision making (something I absolutely didn't when I had my own 2 children). Of course some people will still have more, whether that be accidentally or intentionally. But some people will also have less.

LondonJax · 08/05/2019 16:27

I'm one of those advocating fewer children in families and nowhere have I said it should be enforced. And certainly not by aborting children - that's the same as saying we have an ageing population so let's bump off a few thousand octogenarians!

What I said was that we need, in effect, to normalise having a smaller family rather than the other way around which we tend to do at the moment.

For example, as a society we tend to think it's OK to ask someone who has, say, a four or five year old child whether they're 'planning a brother or sister for x?' Now why is that? Why does a child need a sibling? Who is that second or third child really for?

There have been many posts on Mumsnet in the past saying that a parent is worried that their only child will be lonely or stating that people have told them that and they're worried. Maybe we need to look at more social activities or alternative ways of living that mean only children have access to other children more easily rather than create siblings for them?

Another example, in my childhood we all used to play in the street. Whether you were one of six or an only child you had friends around morning, noon and night. Now our kids tend to spend more time indoors, on PCs etc. Should we be encouraging more estates where there are pedestrianised areas so kids can play safely? Would that encourage some future parents to think having one child isn't going create a lonely child, because the child would have easy, safe, access to other children? It wouldn't change the minds of some parents but a few may think that suits them and stick at one.

We need to look at making one child families the 'I want that' of our children's generation. So encouraging the thought that 'I want that because with one child we can travel more easily, we'll have more money and more time as the child grows up' ' I want that because with one child we can stay in our smaller house, with a cheaper mortgage, have a smaller car, pay less for childcare'. Accentuating the positives of the smaller family rather than dwelling on potential negatives and changing what we do as a society to encourage that.

My parents were encouraged to have larger families. I'm one of three all born in the 60s. Three children was very, very normal then. It was just at the end of the era of replacing those lost in WWII so the more kids the merrier.

In my mum's childhood it wasn't unusual to have lots of kids. She was one of 10 children. And her family was not unusual. Children were still dying of childhood diseases then so parents would 'hedge their bets'. My dad was one of a small family (!) of four...

Society normalises families depending on their need. My friend, who is an only child, was not looked down upon for coming from a one child family in the 1960s. My parents, though, were considered the norm with three kids and it was something people of their generation aspired to. I would imagine exactly the same thing if society decided small families were the aspiration in future.

I just believe we now need to encourage our children to see it as normal to have a small family. If they have twins or triplets or decide that four kids is for them, that's fine. Just as it was for my friend's parents to decide one was right for them in a time when three or four kids was the norm. But the 'average' family will eventually have to be normalised as smaller. After all, a family of four kids and parents will, in probability, have 6 cars on the road by the time the kids leave home. A family of one child plus parents will have half that.

Hithere12 · 08/05/2019 16:50

Pretty much everybody on this thread who has said that people need to have less children have also said that this is not going to be possible to enforce

Wasn’t it the case in China that people with more than one child weren’t allowed to access benefits? That’s one way it could be enforced? After two children that is I don’t agree with a one child policy. I don’t even want kids myself.

I do think this is more of a global problem in Africa and the Middle East as people from the West aren’t even having kids at replacement levels.

Rain0ntheW1nd0w · 08/05/2019 17:43

China had a one child policy, it has created new problems.
China like every where else still has polluting industry, transport etc
Versus
Other countries where people have 10+ children, industry etc
There is no wide world solution
There is no one single solution

BlueJava · 08/05/2019 21:07

I know what you mean OP. I try to reduce all waste, to recycle, plant trees when I fly to offset carbon... then today in the office (i am away for work outside EU) i saw the cleaner emptying piles of unsorted waste and loads of plastic straight into the bin. It seems impossible.

greatandpowerfulozma · 08/05/2019 22:02

Thank you for all these replies I’m really enjoying the debate.

People who have pointed out every little helps you’re right. It does, and if we’re stuffed anyway at least I tried and it saved me money!

I’m going to look into reusable nappies tomorrow and actually be brave and buy some (probably second hand).

I’m already cutting down my meat consumption no more beef or lamb here but I’ll try and be veggie and dairy free all next week and see how it goes.

There’s got to be loads more I can do but those are my starters.

Anyone else want to join me and pledge some little changes? Even if you just try them it’s a start.

OP posts:
dorisdog · 08/05/2019 22:14

I work in sustainability and adaptation, (as an employee and academic) and have done for over fifteen years. It's not too late. It'll be hard and a lot of things need to change - economic growth (based on fossil fuels), consumption. Whole reorganisation of transport, land use, diets, housing etc. We wont be able to stop a certain amount of warming and we will have to adapt to that (and the severity will depend on how fast we decarbonsie our societies.) Lots of parts of the world are already dealing with the effects of climate change. We can learn a lot from them.

Most countries have adaptation plans - worth googling via the united nation framework convention on climate change (for reputable info).

And it's not about population. All but a few countries have declining birth rates, so that's already happening. Worry about the consumption rates per capita, not the numbers. Some countries have the tinniest of carbon footprints, regardless of population size.

Rabbitmug · 08/05/2019 22:19

Absolutely OP! I started off being very gloomy on the thread but feel a bit more empowered now, I totally believe everyone can do their bit - there are nearly 8 billion of us on the planet so that's a lot of little bits Smile

Hithere12 · 08/05/2019 22:25

People who have pointed out every little helps you’re right. It does, and if we’re stuffed anyway at least I tried and it saved me money

I’m sorry but this is incredibly naive. If you actually want to make a difference you’d be better off trying to lobby the government/protest for laws to change and for pressure to be put on businesses than doing these tiny things will make a difference. I used to think like you before I did research. This has to come from a government level.

CupOhTea · 08/05/2019 22:43

@dorisdog

Great post.

I was going to mention (as I always do on these threads) that very large families in parts of Africa on average produce less carbon than a single, childless westerner. So it can't all be down to population.

Although population is obviously a big problem and I totally agree with the pp who said that smaller families should be normalised.

I also think population might end up being managed at both ends (people living "too long" as well as people having "too many" babies). Not by force, but by providing more choice, education and control over how we reproduce, live and die. I think that's a good thing, for the planet and for the individual.

NeleusTheStatue · 08/05/2019 22:57

If you actually want to make a difference you’d be better off trying to lobby the government/protest for laws to change and for pressure to be put on businesses than doing these tiny things will make a difference.

I really believe this mentality is actually very harmful. The change has to come from a government level AS WELL AS from an individual level. It's not only governments who have to deal with the mess. We are all part of it. You can start making a change, you can also lobby the government or protest for laws to change. There is no need to discourage people from making a little change to save the world.

xtinak · 08/05/2019 23:10

I really urge people who want to do something to properly read up on Extinction Rebellion and the rationale behind their strategy. If nothing else it's very interesting, but I also think it stands a small small chance and hence is worth supporting.

Fiveredbricks · 08/05/2019 23:18

Yes @Starisnotanumber but our input is accelerating it ffa!

Fiveredbricks · 08/05/2019 23:18

*ffs too

NoelFridgeAntics · 08/05/2019 23:40

All this hand wringing about birth rate is a red herring. The birth rate has halved since the 1950s. The issue is that life expectancy has risen. In the 1930s pre-antibiotics, there was an average life expectancy of around 40, today in the west it is more than double that. We keep people alive for longer and not in good health. I don't know what the solution is - we don't have the demographics (decreasing working age population) to continually support a massive group of older retired people, either in terms of the NHS or pensions. Maybe we will start having to ration health care for those over 75.

Alternatively and more likely is that increasing antibiotic resistance naturally lowers the life expectancy. We are already at the point where antibiotics are proving ineffective, rates of sepsis are increasing and no new antibiotics are in the pipeline. It's utterly terrifying.

Sorry Sad

bebanjo · 09/05/2019 00:14

Re, how is population increaseing if birth rate is falling?
Just google global birth rate/ global death rate .

greatandpowerfulozma · 09/05/2019 02:08

@hithere12 you are right lobbying for big change is a big part of this, but I agree with @nealusthestatue a bit of both (little personal changes and lobbying for big changes) is the best way.

If I’m honest I don’t know how to lobby for big change. Write to my mp perhaps?? No idea. I’m going to look it up though. Suggestions welcome!

I think making small changes also can cause big change/ is a lobbying act in itself. Consumer power matters.

I watched a Greg Wallace show about Supermarkets the other day and Veganism is a “big trend” so Tesco now have a bloke employed just to help develop vegan products. While more processed foods isn’t ideal easier access to alternatives to animal products will help more people consume less animal products. People buying and asking for more vegan food is causing change. Smile

OP posts:
NeleusTheStatue · 09/05/2019 03:38

I appreciate different opinions but I am a firm believer in taking care of our planet at an individual level. So yes, we can't just expect the governments/larger organizations to rescue us while we carry on our ignorant lifestyle. We all have to make a contribution.

greatandpowerfulozma, there are many ways to protest. Writing a letter is one thing, or sitting outside a parliament is another. Have you heard of Greta Thunberg? She simply started sitting down outside the Swedish parliament in August 2018 which ended up causing a worldwide phenomenon (112 countries got involved by March 2019).

Greta Thunberg

Her determination and contribution as a climate activist are incredible. It's a great example of how an individual effort can make a change too - even a child (she was only when she started).

Smile
NeleusTheStatue · 09/05/2019 03:40

she was only 15 when she started...

Butteredghost · 09/05/2019 05:49

I sort of agree with OP. On one hand, I don't want to just throw my hands up and say "oh well, nothing can be done so it's all pointless", because that is just an excuse to keep consuming and destroying the environment.

But, when I see our world leaders make comments like the Trump one pp mentioned above, I do feel like it's inevitable. Australias recent prime minister Tony Abbott said in 2017 the idea of climate change is "absolute crap" (actual quote!) but if it did exist it would be good because "people die in cold snaps". These are our world leaders, and highly educated people. The ignorance is equally breath taking and horrifying.

Butteredghost · 09/05/2019 05:56

Also, I'm really amazed and inspired by the work of young people such as Greta Thunburg. But equally, this generation (in the west at least) is the most cosseted one yet. The amount of consumption by kids today is massive even compared to my generation and I'm only in my 30s.

Skip school for the environment, and the streets were full (and genuinely I think that's great). But imagine it was "give up your iphone for a day for the environment". There would be tumble weeds blowing in the streets!

Young people no more want to give up their lifestyles than older people do. I don't blame them for this but it makes it hard to imagine they can really change things.

OneThreadOnly0101 · 09/05/2019 06:09

I agree overpopulation is probably the biggest cause for concern. I'm waiting for the disease that will wipe out the masses. That's what the planet needs. A pandemic.

bamboofibre · 09/05/2019 07:57

And it's not about population.

Sure, it isn't Hmm