To wonder when someone will stop us from destroying the planet before it is too late?

[Ohdoleavemealone]

Last night I watched a documentary about how the biggest threat to our oceans is the fishing industry. Worse than plastics (and actually 46% of the plastic is fishing nets), worse than killing sharks for fin soup or putting animals into captivity.
The bycatch from fishing means we are killing thousands of species for the few we want. We have depleted the oceans resources and killed the seabeds with the harsh methods used.
Of course this is on top of our piles of rubbish, fuel polution etc.
We have been destroying our planet for years but have really accelerated in the last 50 years as corporate companies have no moral compass and the rest of us are just sheep. We believe that we need all the consumer driven shit they tell us and we fund the industries killing our planet.
So how does it stop? Is it too late? Do we just accept it or do we try and fight for it? Are we little people enough?

Full disclosure: I do not do enough on a small level to do my bit but I am looking for ways I can.

Won’t happen. Mankind are too stupid and selfish.

The sun will destroy the planet eventually anyway, stars always end up exploding and that's what it is after all. We will have probably decimated nature and the planets resources well before then though, unfortunately.

And millions of people eat ready meals with meat from Brazil in them, or horse, or goodness knows what, not "a little local meat".

But most of these people will be in China / USA / Asia. Ok, maybe a tiny amount comes here but the problem is Asia starting to eat meat more than they did and the huge market in the US.
The meat I buy at my local butcher in Scotland is second to none.
Supermarkets in the UK advertise that they use local meat.
Globally - yes, we must cut back on meat from what was rain forest in South America but here in the UK we have well bred cattle (unlike Africa and S America) and farmers offsetting. It's the wrong complaint in the Uk. Car use is a major contributor - local beef isn't.

Supermarket meat is usually only British when it’s just uncooked meat. My DP asked me to get him some sausage rolls from Tesco and I noticed only one type they sold said British meat on it out of the dozen or so options. It’s the same for most meat products, processed meats, ready meals etc. They don’t put the origin on there and that’s not an insignificant amount of products.

People won’t change their behaviour. They need the big corporations to force them, by offering sustainable options that don’t require a big change. Driving is a good example: I know it causes pollution but I have to go to work. The only way the problem will be fixed is if companies offer electric cars and install nationwide charging infrastructure. Because my need to go to work won’t change.

Also the amount of pollution individuals cause pales in comparison to what big companies cause. You recycling your yogurt pots is totally irrelevant, it’s the big companies that need to change their practices.

Shocked to hear david Attenborough say the world population was only 2 billion
We have no control over that. Population in western countries is declining - its Africa and Asia that are having too many babies. And if we tried to stop them people would start shouting about human rights.

Africa and Asia are slowing down as girls stay longer in education.

@Robbo94

Having children is undoubtedly one of the worst things that we can do to the planet. The usual answer is that we need people to care for the aging population (which is true) but the cycle will just continue.

Absolutely this. A massive increase in the population over a century the planet cannot support that many people living the lifestyle people want. Just look at all those people demanding to fly to visit family abroad on the other thread (a flight to New York needs offsetting by the equivalent of 8 years of 100% recycling). Also the environment impact of having a child is by far massive than anything else you can do someone who doesn't recycling drives a ford Mustang heats their home using coal and has fly's for holiday produces less co2 than person who has a baby. the population needs to be controlled and although it is unpopular on a parent's site the government should be taxing people to change behaviour and children/population growth should be the focus of governments attention before we mess around with the politically easier and less important stuff to combat man's impact on the planet. But considering how difficult it was to remove child benefit from more than 2 children I don't hold up much hope

We will destroy ourselves and the planet. Much sooner than anyone thinks too. I give society as we know it 50 to 100 years. Climate refugees will start migrating by the billion from uninhabitable regions in the next 20 years...all while population growth is out of control.

Its a done deal and the next generation or two are going to bear the full brunt of it.

The sitting back and waiting for the “big corporations” to deal with it is so thick - who are the “big corporations” customers? You and me! Without us they don’t exist you can’t absolve responsibility like that.

@Hyperion100

We will destroy ourselves and the planet. Much sooner than anyone thinks too. I give society as we know it 50 to 100 years. Climate refugees will start migrating by the billion from uninhabitable regions in the next 20 years...all while population growth is out of control.

Its a done deal and the next generation or two are going to bear the full brunt of it.

What are you going to say when this doesn’t happen?

The ‘Population Bomb’ guy predicted mass starvation by the 70s. He’s still around (and with a child to boot!) and still bleating it’s going to happen; he keeps doubling down and pushing back ‘Doomsday’

Meanwhile things only got better for the vast majority of humanity.

It’s a religion to these people.

U.K. pop is approaching 70 m, it was 50 when I was young - that's nearly a 50% increase.

@Graciebobcat

Africa and Asia are slowing down as girls stay longer in education.

Indeed. The same pattern has development has been seen all over. Healthcare improves and mortality drops but it takes time for the birth rate to drop to match as people realise that they don't need ten kids to guarantee that two of them will survive.

The best way to reduce birth rates is female emancipation and access to contraception.

There was a thread recently about big families where a poster who came from one elaborated upon why their mother had so many kids. In short, her mother's whole vocation was 'being a mother' - once one child became more independent another one was had because nurturing gave the mother a purpose in life. Given access to better education, employment provides a purpose instead so there's not the same drive to keep having more children.

@ClearMountain

Shocked to hear david Attenborough say the world population was only 2 billion We have no control over that. Population in western countries is declining - its Africa and Asia that are having too many babies. And if we tried to stop them people would start shouting about human rights.

I agree. The irony is for many women and girls, improved access to education and family planning is a human rights issue.

The sitting back and waiting for the “big corporations” to deal with it is so thick - who are the “big corporations” customers? You and me!
But we can only buy what they’re selling. Cotton ear buds are a prime example. People are more than willing to buy biodegradable ones, but we couldn’t buy them until they appeared on supermarket shelves.

@ClearMountain

The sitting back and waiting for the “big corporations” to deal with it is so thick - who are the “big corporations” customers? You and me! But we can only buy what they’re selling. Cotton ear buds are a prime example. People are more than willing to buy biodegradable ones, but we couldn’t buy them until they appeared on supermarket shelves.

Or you could use a bamboo or metal ear pick and never have a cotton bud again. These things are out there and people choose differently.

@ClearMountain and this is only going to happen when rural living is also taken into account. I live rurally and work in community nursing covering a very large rural area, at the moment electric cars I don’t think what I’d available would cover the miles I do, not to mention the cost of buying one. I doubt the nhs will provide an electric car for every staff member to use either, we have 1 pool car between 6 members of staff at the moment. I also need my personal car for school drop offs shopping appointments etc.

I also remember the thread not long ago about not selling petrol/diesel cars by a certain date and everyone rightly pointed out that every house having charging points was highly unlikely, there are rural areas in scotland with no internet or slow internet still! My house is also set back far off the street where my car is parked how would I charge an electric car? Extension out on to the street? Trip hazard? Honestly I don’t know

News today: ‘Elite minority of frequent flyers cause most of aviation's climate damage’ www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/31/elite-minority-frequent-flyers-aviation-climate-damage-flights-environmental

[quote PattyPan]News today: ‘Elite minority of frequent flyers cause most of aviation's climate damage’ www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/31/elite-minority-frequent-flyers-aviation-climate-damage-flights-environmental[/quote]
You know that’s going to make things more expensive for the rest of us, but I guess that’s the point for you.

I for one appreciated the increasingly lower costs of flights and would fight anything like this. Airline industry has already taken a massive hit ...

It was already to the point in China where the flights were less expensive than the high-speed trains!

It's why rationing would be fairer than making all flights more expensive. Everyone gets one flight allowance a year (with exceptions for genuinely essential work and emergencies like visiting seriously ill relatives). Selling your allowance should be allowed, which would give some flexibility and pacify flying addicts.

Higher taxes won't reduce emissions. All it would do is price out average and lower income people from flying. Wealthy people would continue to frequently fly.

It’s not ‘the rest of us’ if the tax only affects the less than a third of people who fly multiple times a year. The fact is that sin taxes work. Hopefully it would be coupled with increased investment in the railways.

It's not individuals that are causing the problem. I don't have the exact figures to hand but something like 70% of all pollution is caused by the mega corps and good luck getting them to change.

@QuestionableMouse

It's not individuals that are causing the problem. I don't have the exact figures to hand but something like 70% of all pollution is caused by the mega corps and good luck getting them to change.

What are "mega corps" if not collections of individuals?

@QuestionableMouse who buys their products?

Consumers but climate change is basically impossible to change at consumer level. It has to change from the top and those companies aren't interested in changing because it'll cost them money.