To think the environment is fucked and no it won't get better?

[clairemcnam]

I have been an environmental activist pretty much my whole adult life. But in that time nearly everything has got worse. Even individual consumer behaviour is far less environmentally friendly than 30 or even 20 years ago.
I am growing very cynical and I think most people simply don't care enough to do anything that will make a real difference.

YANBU, OP.

I'm basically operating under the assumption that humankind has set itself on the path to self-extinction at this point.

It's not what I ever wanted. I was brought up by ardently environmentalist parents. I make an honest effort, such as taking 4h train journeys when I could fly to the same destination in a third of that time instead and not owning a car. But I also commit environmental sins en masse. Never mind the fact that part of my job consists of helping the air travel industry more money - one way of achieving which naturally consists of simply making people fly more.

TBH, the notion that we're fucking up the planet and may manage outselves into obliteration as a species is something I kind of accept at this point. I'm comforted by the fact that we're arguably the only animal capable of anticipating this. Also by the fact that I don't have children of my own about whose futures I'd have to worry. Neither does my sibling. So at least there's no family to worry about.

I don't want things to be like this. And I do want to contribute to change. But I work in a so-called high-powered job, so I see captains of industry at work every day. Often enough to see that this is a game of chicken and that none of them will give up on an additional 5% profit market first.

I think we're doomed and that it's entirely inevitable. I also think that we could do better but just aren't equipped to. It makes me sad, so I try not to think about it too much.

@Thejoysof2boys

I disagree. The planet is not being destroyed. We are not in the great climate crisis the Greens make out.

The West isn't the problem though. What we could do with most third world communities around the world changing their behaviour, and becoming more civilised.

However, if the climate change lobby get their way, the whole world will be reduced back to a feudal economy.

Still, tell people they can't go abroad on holiday. Tell football fans they can't go to Baku or Madrid to watch football.

Stop importing foreign food - Chocolate/Coffee/Tea for a start
Stop importing foreign goods- stop container ships
Stop everyone having cars. Make them ride bikes or walk instead.
Stop allowing any foreign workers to come into the country, and force people already in the country to do the work that needs doing - picking crops and so on.

Millions of people around the world will be made destitute, but we will be saving the world, when we are self-sufficient.

Back to the future.

@wheresmymojo

sorry - my last response was to you, not the other poster I quoted. That was a response to another thread.

Agreed. It's a huge reason why we have decided not to have kids. I think it needs to go greater than restricting families to 2 to be honest but if I say that here I usually get savaged.

It's depressing and I feel totally helpless.

The West isn't the problem though. What we could do with most third world communities around the world changing their behaviour, and becoming more civilised.

Are you for fucking real? What entitled twattery. I mean everything you’ve said, but particularly this.

I agree.

If governments are sincere about trying to slow down the impact humans have had on the environment then it’s time for them, and activists, to target the manufacturers and producers, haulage, packing industries. There’s little point going after the end user to recycle but start at the top of the chain.

I don’t think it’s as simple as people not caring but feeling impotent in the face of a global situation that is very hard, at times, to be tangible for the masses.

Some things I do because I know it’s the right thing to do but not because I think it will make a significant difference. I used a backpack for shopping in town long before we were charged because we had a plethora of them just being thrown away. Do I feel guilty if I do end up having to buy a bag? No, pissed off at having to spend 5p because I didn’t think ahead.

I know it would be really hard to make sacrifices, especially when in this day & age we've gotten so used to the luxuries & convenience we have. But would people really not be willing to make changes, given what's at stake? We don't NEED single use plastics, we don't NEED fast fashion, we don't NEED to drive absolutely everywhere. People managed without these things in times gone by, not that long ago.
But we do need governments to impose laws & legislations etc so that people have to do it.
I think of things like the smoking ban - I remember at the time everyone saying how crazy it would be NOT to be able to smoke inside pubs, no one was going to go out anymore. Then it happened & now everyone I know can't believe that smoking inside used to be allowed! Just an example of how things can change & become the new norm.

I really enjoy Mumsnet (despite getting annoyed at times, like I'm sure everyone does!)
However I'm really struggling with these threads to the point worrying about it is affecting me day to day. I've cried twice today over the whole thing and been scouring the internet for reassurance.
We've made s lotvof changes at my house and are trying our best. But the stress of worrying about my small children in the future is getting too consuming so I think I'm going to bail out of here for a while. Not to be in denial, but I get too mentally involved and it's too much for my head.
But I have learned a lot from many wise people here, so thankyou!
I'll be back when in a better headspace

I read somewhere that even if we do go to a completely zero carbon economy, it will reduce the temperature of the planet by such a miniscule amount that it will hardly make any difference. I do think we will just have to go extinct to enable the planet to recover and rely all we can do by reducing our usage of 'stuff' is make our lives more tolerable until we do. I agree that people aren't willing to do enough globally. If you think God made the world for exame, why should you restrict the amount of children you have? Not to mention telling parents not to drive to school in their 4x4's and sit idling outside for half an hour or telling people not to have overseas holidays. I think antibiotic resistance will probably reduce global population pretty rapidly, and then maybe the re.aining humans will be a le to live a more sustainable life.

We need to heavily penalise having more than 2kids

And leave having children only for the ones who can afford it? Who probably have a much heavier impact on the environment than poorer people?

We need to heavily limit air travel

Which would make many a business collapse in the process...

All new cars need to be hybrid or electric,

Electric cars have a higher carbon footprint; the energy needs to come from somewhere (i.e. fossil fuels burnt to make energy...) and since the transfer of energy is never going to approach an efficiency of 1.0 you are actually creating a greater need for energy than direct combustion.

limited to speeds automatically,

Slower speeds lead to an increase in congestion, which leads to longer times fuel needs to be in use for. It makes no difference, or potentially even has a negative effect.

number of miles needs to be limited

How does that work in practice? You're on the M25 and suddenly your car cuts off, needing recovery for both you and your car? Penalties won't make a difference, same way taxes don't make a difference to consumption.

Heating needs to be limited to 19 degrees by default via smart hubs, only allowed to rise in approved circumstances

No need if houses were insulated better. The standard of housing and insulation in the UK is shocking, compared to other countries.

Meat needs rationing

Cue the slaughter of millions of animals whose pupose is suddenly void. And a massive black market for the rest - would people be prevented from rearing their own chickens, say?

Food imports need reducing

And yet there is mass panic on MN over Brexit, partly because reducing food imports would be devastating to our country, which cannot sustain its population on what we produce.

“Cheap” good from China etc need heavily taxing

Why single out China? It would just move the problem elsewhere. And cheap =/= poor quality, even if there is often a correletion.

It needs to be illegal to create sealed units in goods which can’t be accessed for repair

Depends on the hazards botched repair jobs would cause. I'd rather have a sealed unit than risk my fridge catching fire or an electric shock from a faulty shower unit.

We need to be given clothing rationing to stop all the fast fashion

NOT the answer. What we do need is a greater manufacturing base at home and an appreciation of well-made clothes.

In general, you rely far too much on government interference in your post. A complete nanny state is not the answer to all our ills; not even the Soviet Union was able to exert that much control over its people., and they were pretty efficient in keeping tabs (I had the misfortune to have been born into it...)

What the UK needs is a complete shift in education. Instead of the traditional academic Ebacc subjects there should be far more emphasis on DIY skills, efficient housekeeping, craft and sewing skills, knowledge of local plants and their uses (seriously, how many of us can identify useful wildflowers and separate them from poisonous ones, how to recycle paper at home or know how to prepare wood for usage?) and enough creative education to comply with reduce and reuse? In addition to computer science skills (different from ICT, mind). Less emphasis on Shakespeare and knowing the six wives of Henry VIII, more emphasis on understanding Science.

My family don't consume much... because we have sufficient knowledge of Science to repair many items, I am well-versed in sewing and therefore reuse old clothes to make new, stylish ones and upcycling where possible, both DH and I are good at DIY and we don't mind upcycling second-hand stuff. I craft a lot, cook from scratch and don't need too many imported foods, rarely ever processed ones. We are both learning gardening skills and have started growing our own herbs and vegetables. We shop locally.
And while I love Hobbycraft I rarely buy from there. The point of crafting is not to spend more than buying would have done.

All of this stems from our backgrounds and education - we are very much self-taught, but others may need help with that. So the education system needs a kick into modern life, which, yes, does mean more reliance on traditional skills. It means, ultimately, reducing consumerism, but that is only possible if we take responsibility ourselves and invest time, rather than saying "the government should" and stick our heads in the sand.

What the UK needs is a complete shift in education.

Good luck with that ....

How does slowing speeds lead to greater congestion? Everything I have read says the opposite.

How does slowing speeds lead to greater congestion? We must be reading different news, then.

Say, cars are limited to exactly the speed limit, which happens to be 30mph. A cyclist is on the road. Without the ability to safely overtake while briefly exceeding the speed limit you'll be stuck at 20mph (if lucky), as is everyone behind you. Or the person who chooses to do 40mph in a 60 zone on a straight road in good conditions. Others approaching will have to slow down often leading to some doing, say, 38mph, with others trailing behind maybe doing 37mph, slowing down more for corners etc... It's not difficult to see. I commute along back roads daily and it is amazing of the congestion a single vehicle or cyclist can cause.

Similar has been observed in cities where road speeds have been reduced from 40 to 30 and 30 to 20.

Good luck with that ....
Agreed. I don't think it ever will; I merely point out what would be necessary. I'd also say much of this is a parent's responsibility, but, again, how can they teach what they do not necessarily know or understand?

How does slowing speeds lead to greater congestion?

Because it reduces the space between cars such that it's harder to join traffic from a junction. so queues build up

Everything I have read says the opposite.

Which simply invites a request for a cite.

YANBU OP. Not sure what we can do except enjoy it while we can? And yes it's sickening to say that.

Without the ability to safely overtake while briefly exceeding the speed limit

If you "have" to exceed the speed limit, then you aren't overtaking safely.

Pleased to have sorted that one.

Climate change will not wipe us all out, but there’ll be a vast reduction in population - somehow.

An ice age could do that, a “plague” that we haven’t got medicines for, food shortages due to extreme weather, running out of fossil fuels, wars fighting over increasingly limited resources. There is absolutely no question one or more of these will happen at some point, and a lot of the population will suffer hugely. The planet will survive, and I suspect humans will to some extent. We don’t realise it but we (in developed countries) are some of the luckiest to ever have lived. The question is not if something really bad is going to come, but when. I’d rather not still be here then if I’m honest!

I’ll still do my best to recycle, conserve water, not waste energy etc

Gth blaming third world countries is unbelievably crass. The west has pillaged the planet for decades to achieve our privileged standard of living. Per capita the US and the UK consume far more than China, why is each person in those countries allowed to consume more in your eyes?

So much of our economy depends on us being avid consumers. Where are all the students of today going to work if you stop driving cars, designing fashionable clothes, building bridges etc. People say new jobs will be developed but I have to say I think that is utter nonsense. If people aren't consuming who can you sell stuff to? Machines are even picking fruit off the trees, collecting cauliflowers from the fields.
What will make the economy run if we stop consuming???

But what will change things is making it profitable to change - I don't get why no one is selling yoghurts in waxed cardboard pots, or potatoes in paper bags - I would definitely buy them, and as producers realised that people are buying more of these they also would use recycable containers.
If there is money to be made by it then producers will produce it. Right now supermarkets aren't selling things so we have no option but to buy plastic bagged stuff.

I agree there needs to be proper legislation coming from governments and lawmakers. They added the sugar tax to soft drinks - I thought it wouldn't make a difference but when I see that Coca Cola is +15p at McDonald's vs Diet Coke, I do go for the diet. However, financial penalties do unfairly penalise the poor - if petrol gets (even more) taxed, then rich people will just pay the increase while it might stop a poorer person from getting to work. I think initiatives at a higher level (eg tax breaks for companies who allow working from home and keep business travel to a minimum) would help.

Drink driving went from fine and dandy to a massive no-no in less than a generation. Could the same be done for using single use plastics or excessive consumption? Without making the undesirable behaviours illegal I don't think so.

I agree there needs to be proper legislation coming from governments and lawmakers. They added the sugar tax to soft drinks - I thought it wouldn't make a difference but when I see that Coca Cola is +15p at McDonald's vs Diet Coke, I do go for the diet.

Red Bull is, on average, 50p more expensive in the full-sugar version in a pack of 4. Yet it seems the full-sugar version is always sold out or close to (empty shelves) whereas the sugar-free versions are barely touched at all. Same with the tonic waters I drink - be it Fevertree or the Aldi version; it is much harder to get my hands on the full-sugar versions as they are almost always favoured.

It is not working and not designed to work, either.

I agree so much. When I express this view in my neck of the woods it's met with silence. I live in a very green area. I recycle and will continue to do so, but I'm recycling what governments and big corporations produce. There are good well intentioned people, but they don't sit at the top table.

This whole thread is crazy.
I keep drafting comments, but they turn into diatribes.

@tessalectus. Re the bold items, the quotes from @LifeOver.

It seems to me you are just glibly repudiating some quite reasonable suggestions. This really isn't about minor changes in behaviour at all. It's about massive changes. Plastics isn't a few plastic bags in a supermarket. Plastics is virtually everything advanced we use in society.

The real problem is that an economy needs to keep growing. If you don't want the growth, the things you will lose in due course are pensions, the welfare state and so on, and you will get a decline in living standards. A massive decline. These things need lots of taxes, and lots of taxes needs high employment, and high GDP. That's why they fixed the economic crisis by making money cheap. They have to have consumers spending money.

The "more services" that left wing politicians drone on about ad nauseum are just not possible in your green new world. So that's the choice, but you won't vote for politicians that tell you the real truth.

Finally, the world will not end by a growth in temperature of a few degrees, actually or metaphorically. Obviously it will affect some communities. Some places will be less pleasant. Some will be more pleasant.

It’s nonsense that politicians won’t say that about growth needing to end. It’s literally written in the UK Green Party manifesto every time. New Zealand have just declared they’re going to use wellbeing instead of growth to measure the country’s success. And you’re stuff about growth being necessary for pensions and the welfare state is only true if the only economic model you consider valid is hyper capitalism.

Some places will be more pleasant to live in? Well, you might have the odd day of warm weather in Greenland but the lack of food will probably mean it’s not that pleasant.

It seems to me you are just glibly repudiating some quite reasonable suggestions. This really isn't about minor changes in behaviour at all. It's about massive changes. Plastics isn't a few plastic bags in a supermarket. Plastics is virtually everything advanced we use in society.

Massive changes come about through mass-implementation of little changes, done individually. Top-down management rarely ever works, and then only when it benefits people.

There is a reason for plastic packaging, connected to less waste - either, because they are used to protect food in an oxygen-poor atmosphere (try achieving that with paper) or to cut down on bruising and early deterioration. So while the packaging on many foods is not needed on the shopfloor, it is needed to to transport and store said food inside shops.

Demonising plastic packaging isn't the answer here. If you want to reduce plastic usage you have to accept that you will either get far more imperfect food, you will not be able to buy certain foods all year round, or both. Market forces can change that, but ONLY if people know what to do with locally-grown produce and if people accept less availability of food.

As for plastic use in everything else - again, it's market forces. People buy cheap over expensive, new over second-hand. It's PEOPLE driving the use of more plastic - it's cheap to produce, versatile and has lots of uses you would have to live without - try cooking with pans without Teflon coating, lack of waterproofing on shoes and coats, lack of proper insulation - you'd either have to massively increase animal consumption (and the associated use of lard, leather and wool - to name a few things plastic have replaced) or accept your life becomes that little bit harder - which global issue do you prioritise?

The real problem is that an economy needs to keep growing.
No. The real issue is the economic model itself; in a finite space it will always implode on itself and we are nearly at that point.

If you don't want the growth, the things you will lose in due course are pensions, the welfare state and so on, and you will get a decline in living standards. A massive decline.
We don't need the amount of welfare we have. Our definition of poverty is measured by many unnecessary comforts we have. Pensions should be a personal thing and will, again, run their course in my lifetime; with the ever-increasing pension age many people in my generation will not see any of the money we are paying in, given that the money is used to sustain pensioners now.
Maybe our living standards are too high? How many creature comforts does one person really need? But human nature doesn't work like that.

These things need lots of taxes, and lots of taxes needs high employment, and high GDP. That's why they fixed the economic crisis by making money cheap. They have to have consumers spending money.
Nope. Only in the current economic model, which will need rethinking in a few decades anyway.
Taxes are mainly admin of distribution. My job is paid for by taxes. I get my salary and then have to send some of my money straight back to where it came from. Madness.

The "more services" that left wing politicians drone on about ad nauseum are just not possible in your green new world.

Depends on what you consider a service. Most trades are services, and necessary ones.

So that's the choice, but you won't vote for politicians that tell you the real truth.
Umm... you have no idea what/ who I voted for. I don't even discuss that choice with my own husband.

Finally, the world will not end by a growth in temperature of a few degrees, actually or metaphorically. Obviously it will affect some communities. Some places will be less pleasant. Some will be more pleasant.
And therein lies your lack of scientific knowledge. No, homeotherms will not be directly affected by "a few degrees". That priviledge goes to the many "invisible" insects and arachnids on which we unknowingly rely. A few degrees there can make the difference between survival and death, if you take into account that it also means a subtle shifts in habitats, such as plant life. Fancy malaria-carrying mosquitoes over here? It's only a few degrees, after all.

How about the spread of bacteria and fungi, which are very much temperature-dependent? How about the loss of habitat for Arctic animals, which we can already observe? Desertification, which is spreading rapidly?

It's only a few degrees, my arse.

The real problem is that an economy needs to keep growing.

Because the worlds population keeps growing. It's a simple causation.

It’s nonsense that politicians won’t say that about growth needing to end. It’s literally written in the UK Green Party manifesto every time. New Zealand have just declared they’re going to use wellbeing instead of growth to measure the country’s success

Unless they explicitly note the need for a reduction in population, it's just weasel words and unicorn policies. You really can reduce it to three lines in meme ...

people need resources from reserves.

Assuming is the Earth and everything on it and pretty much set at whatever is, then if and are getting bigger their share of will decrease.

You can wrap x,y and z in all sorts of clever twiddles (vaguely reminiscent of the twiddles on orrerys needed to explain the motion of Mars) but you can't escape the harsh reality that trying to get more for more from the same means less for all.