If it’s that bad, why aren’t we panicking more??

[Nightgardenisodd]

Climate change.
I keep reading posts about it and it’s scaring the crap out of me for my DD’s future.
How bad is it? Anyone have any positivity about it?

Also I can't quite see that growing fields of animal fodder is BAD but doing away with animals and growing fields of human fodder (all the ploughing, seeding, harvesting,_ is necessarily wholly Good for the environment

Very little is black and white but the Amazon is being cut down to grow soy to feed cattle. That crop is the same crop used to feed humans but in its own right can provide 20 times as much protein as when it comes to us in the form of beef

Some of the misinformation here is staggering. The most important thing anyone can is educate themselves. I'd urge you to start here:

ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
skepticalscience.com/

@Lavender24

People don't want to acknowledge how bad it is because they don't want to take any personal responsibility for it and change their ways ie not eating animal products. Sadly people would literally rather ruin the planet for their kids than change their habits.

I don't think it is as simple as that. I think it is the options available to people which need to change and that has to be led by governments.

For example - I replaced my WellKnownBrandVacuum 3 years ago - first one lasted 10 years suction amazing, second lasted 3 years suction pants (not accusing WellKnownBrand of limiting lifespans, I don't know, but it seems to be a logical possibility). There are no longer options locally to have my WellKnownBrandVacuum remediated. I don't want to buy an expensive brand which lasts only 3 years. I could buy a basics brand for peanuts but reviews say no spare parts are available and it will only last a year. I think to myself - well, it costs peanuts, i could buy another in a year. But that would mean several machines to the landfill and right now there isn't a decent alternative. Landfill = pollution= damage to environment and climate change

This is just one example.

If you have a contract with a well known comms company, you get offered regular "upgrades" of expensive phones for no extra cost. Huge piles of rubbish pollute and have knock on effects on environment and climate.

Travel - as I said upthread lorry and airline manufacturers are now offering electric or renewable fuel replacements - the technology has been able to be developed for years - why hasn't it happened before?

Huge problems are caused by resources from under ground - oil, coal - getting it out of the ground, refining it, using it, disposing of it - again different technologies could and should have been developed

@afriusaenghather I'm afraid meat production does not account for 50% of emissions, if that were the case the whole thing would be blindingly simple to solve - posting such obvious rubbish does nothing to further your (our) cause and detracts massively from the issues we face. I posted upthread a link to ourworlindata, this is a very well respected organisation translating huge volumes of peer reviewed papers into bite meal sized chunks. The pie chart is my favorite infographic at the moment.

Top level emissions data:

Energy (electricity, heat and transport): 73.2%
Direct Industrial Processes: 5.2%
Waste: 3.2%
Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use: 18.4%

A great list @Fimofriend

So, some positivity. The UK Government is one of very few in the world to have set legally binding targets for emissions reduction. This is managed through the Climate Change Committee www.theccc.org.uk/ and one of the key intruments is the carbon budget. The Gov (I'm not generally a fan of this lot) are investing billions in sustainability, and they are really useless at advertising this. Equally I get truly exasperated by well meaning organisations demanding net zero within a decade - this is naive in the extreme, if we could we would, we can't. 2050 is challenging.

FWIW - ALL big businesses are building sustainability road maps, I work in this field and they are generally bricking themselves.

I also get fed up with people saying "its up to gov" "its up to big business". NO do not devolve your personal responsibility, it is up to all of us, every individual, every club, every parish, county, organisation and country.

A last thought, the first step on the road to sustainability is to understand and measure our impact, bearing in mind the graph I posted upthread which clearly shows energy use in domestic buildings is a huge factor: we are a family of four, our domestic heat and energy use is 10600kWhr.pa or 59kWhr/m2.

If anyone wants help measuring their energy use, im only too happy to help.

[quote Daftasabroom]@afriusaenghather I'm afraid meat production does not account for 50% of emissions, if that were the case the whole thing would be blindingly simple to solve - posting such obvious rubbish does nothing to further your (our) cause and detracts massively from the issues we face. I posted upthread a link to ourworlindata, this is a very well respected organisation translating huge volumes of peer reviewed papers into bite meal sized chunks. The pie chart is my favorite infographic at the moment.

Top level emissions data:

Energy (electricity, heat and transport): 73.2%
Direct Industrial Processes: 5.2%
Waste: 3.2%
Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use: 18.4%

A great list @Fimofriend

So, some positivity. The UK Government is one of very few in the world to have set legally binding targets for emissions reduction. This is managed through the Climate Change Committee www.theccc.org.uk/ and one of the key intruments is the carbon budget. The Gov (I'm not generally a fan of this lot) are investing billions in sustainability, and they are really useless at advertising this. Equally I get truly exasperated by well meaning organisations demanding net zero within a decade - this is naive in the extreme, if we could we would, we can't. 2050 is challenging.

FWIW - ALL big businesses are building sustainability road maps, I work in this field and they are generally bricking themselves.

I also get fed up with people saying "its up to gov" "its up to big business". NO do not devolve your personal responsibility, it is up to all of us, every individual, every club, every parish, county, organisation and country.

A last thought, the first step on the road to sustainability is to understand and measure our impact, bearing in mind the graph I posted upthread which clearly shows energy use in domestic buildings is a huge factor: we are a family of four, our domestic heat and energy use is 10600kWhr.pa or 59kWhr/m2.

If anyone wants help measuring their energy use, im only too happy to help.[/quote]
There isn’t a purely accurate way to tell the true percentage. The charity providing the info graphic and data are primarily funded by the Bill and Melinda gates foundation. Whilst I’m not suggesting that this study and data presentation, was influenced, I am suggesting that there is huge evidence to show many eco charities are actually a front for big business messages.

There are many many studies including one by Oxford that put global industrial farming as one of the largest cause of greenhouse gases.

I also referenced industrial fishing in my posts. There’s huge evidence to show that the ocean charity messages that are pumped to consumers are based on big business capitalist funding.

Have a look at the dolphin friendly label you see on tuna. It’s all a falicy - it’s a label paid for by big business in reality.

The pie chart doesn’t even take into account half possible things I’ve read about - recent evidence suggests that phytoplankton (tiny organisms within the sea that photosynthesise) create 80% of the worlds oxygen, and absorbs 4 x co2 of the Amazon rain forest. 45% of the plastic in the sea (which breaks down to micro plastic) killing the sea life we need to retain this co2 absorbing oxygen creation, is actually from industrial fishing nets, yet we are told a very different thing indeed.

The fuel industry is another thing indeed. Not one I discount. Have a look at the Exxon video here showing how big oil companies dispute and delay climate change action by various methods. m.youtube.com/watch?v=5v1Yg6XejyE

Eating animals and fish is a major contributor to climate change. It’s easier to change my diet than it is to cycle to the shops for my weekly food.

Industrialisation in the 1950’s has caused this mess, and it now all run on big global businesses making it very hard to understand the truth, as they pay to retain their ‘cash cows’

Electric cars are not without major issues - the scene of a Tesla on fire last week which took ten times the water to extinguish is shocking. When we all have electric black outs due to plugging in our cars at night, that’ll be pretty scary. www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/tesla-crash-driver-arrested-fire-b1901603.html%3famp

Personally I think we need to fine (anti trust) and tax (closing loopholes) big businesses and give a leg up to local small business that promote more localised industry.

We’re too late to reverse things without really drastic action frankly

Typos above (eg Tesla fire required 40 times the water)

Industrialisation in the 1950’s has caused this mess, and it now all run on big global businesses making it very hard to understand the truth, as they pay to retain their ‘cash cows’

Yes. Although really the problem (industrialisation) started in the 19th century (to a smaller extent in the late 18th). People known as luddites - the ones smashing the machines. They were trying to save their livelihoods and avoid destitution for themselves and their families. That was their motivation but if you think about it, they were also (unwittingly) fighting against the start of human worsened climate change.

Basically industrialisation, human overpopulation, and globalisation don't fit in with environmentally friendly.

At the start of the 19th century, the total UK population was around 10 million. Just two hundred years(ish) later, that's pretty much the population of London alone. Today the total UK population is around 68 million. Add in modern consumption - and that's a drastically increased demand for limited natural resources (and land etc).

The issue is replicated around the world.
China was condemned when it tried to tackle it - their (now abandoned) one child policy. It's not a completely lost idea however. Certain parts of India are looking at incentising smaller families. It's only (some parts) of one country, but it's a start.

From what I understand, bitcoin - crytocurrency is very unenvironmentally friendly. Consumes huge amounts of energy. Perhaps something we might need to bear in mind.

@Tealightsandd

The issue is replicated around the world. China was condemned when it tried to tackle it - their (now abandoned) one child policy. It's not a completely lost idea however. Certain parts of India are looking at incentising smaller families. It's only (some parts) of one country, but it's a start.

This is really true and your posts above about globalisation. China moved from 1 child policy to 2, they moved to a 3 child policy in May this year.

The loss of local country manufacturing puts the UK at risk too.

Have a look up how avacado became popular, it was a big crop year and clever marketing. A huge global industry of one product, which causes mass co2 by transportation, which lots of people would not want to give up.

A question for those in the know about the food side. I am cutting down meat and fish consumption as it's an easy "win". My family prefer the soy/bean substitute "meat" to my own vegan experiments. Should I be concerned about where the soy comes from? Is there a reputable way to trace its origin? I don't want to feel happy about removing beef from a meal, whilst blithely contributing to deforestation through my fake "chicken!".

@afriusaenghather why would a CO2 sink be listed in emissions data?

@Tealightsandd

From what I understand, bitcoin - crytocurrency is very unenvironmentally friendly. Consumes huge amounts of energy. Perhaps something we might need to bear in mind.

Yes it is. …But it’s basic principle is a good one, deregulated finance takes much power away from the 1% but can also fuel crime, but in another related form blockchain technology in regulated use, helps provide instant transactional accountability - which stops much of the fraud that goes on today in the banking, finance and stock market sectors which harm those with least money.

ETH is greener, and particularly so after the London fork upgrade 10 days ago.

Bitcoin was the start of a defi revolution, and the blockchain tech behind it has many uses to help the world, though right now it’s not at all green but it’s competitors are. Nearly all Bitcoin are mined now anyhow so then it only goes up in value and down in emissions.

@afriusaenghather do you know what your household energy usage is?

@TheABC

A question for those in the know about the food side. I am cutting down meat and fish consumption as it's an easy "win". My family prefer the soy/bean substitute "meat" to my own vegan experiments. Should I be concerned about where the soy comes from? Is there a reputable way to trace its origin? I don't want to feel happy about removing beef from a meal, whilst blithely contributing to deforestation through my fake "chicken!".

Quorn is based on manufactured fungal protein, soy is crop based. Neither perfect, but better than meat. You can look to more eco friendly sources within each bracket. You can also look at jack fruit. Quorn or fungal based can be manfactored more locally that jack fruit or soy imports which are typically flown in.

[quote Daftasabroom]@afriusaenghather do you know what your household energy usage is?[/quote]
My dual fuel bill is about £150 per month. It’s mostly electric use.

@Tealightsandd I'm not being flippant but a key aspect is educating girls. In many developing countries girls have minimal education, often getting married and raising families I their teens. More educated women/girls have fewer children later, they are more independent, they contribute more financially. Etc. Etc.

[quote Daftasabroom]@afriusaenghather why would a CO2 sink be listed in emissions data?[/quote]
Sorry I don’t understand what you mean?

@Daftasabroom You are one of the few people posting on here talking sense.... because you actually know what you’re talking about due to your professional background I’m guessing. I agree tackling the biggest areas of impact is most important.

Government is much more than Boris Johnson and his cabinet. I think a lot of people on here need to go back to basics and understand how the policy process in the modern state actually works. I also get frustrated by blaming govt and business - the picture is complex and there is lots of investment being pumped into this - much more than people here realise.

We really are leading the way on this worldwide. Obviously you lot have no idea what the UKRI challenge funds, the zero NHS project (one of the words largest employers). Of course we have to do so much more. But we are already doing A LOT compared to other states.

*zero carbon NHS

[quote Daftasabroom]@afriusaenghather do you know what your household energy usage is?[/quote]
And I’m with ‘green’ as the supplier. So in theory should be a green source of fuel supply. Though I’m sure there are holes in that argument

Basically our govt has committed to delivering the worlds first net zero national health service. I’m proud of all the people working really hard on projects like these. Then ignorant campaigners come along lacking knowledge about all the work underway, and denigrate government and business for doing nothing. It’s very misleading to say the least.

Re: population growth. We have passed peak baby (globally) and the main reason the numbers keep climbing is due to people living longer - although that may reverse if many of the climate predictions come to pass.

China comes in for criticism because - although well meaning- their one child policy was a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Their family sizes were already coming down when the policy went into practice. I won't deny it was successful, but it caused a lot of anguish, suffering and the abortion of millions of baby girls. That is now coming back to bite them in the arse as an estimated 30 million Chinese men cannot find wives in a society that prizes the family unit as a sign of success. I don't think lifting the cap to three kids will help that much either. Chinese couples face the same or worse pressures as Western couples in terms of housing, childcare costs and juggling a career. The only country to date that has bucked the trend of higher living standards/smaller families is Israel.

@TheABC

Re: population growth. We have passed peak baby (globally) and the main reason the numbers keep climbing is due to people living longer - although that may reverse if many of the climate predictions come to pass.

China comes in for criticism because - although well meaning- their one child policy was a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Their family sizes were already coming down when the policy went into practice. I won't deny it was successful, but it caused a lot of anguish, suffering and the abortion of millions of baby girls. That is now coming back to bite them in the arse as an estimated 30 million Chinese men cannot find wives in a society that prizes the family unit as a sign of success. I don't think lifting the cap to three kids will help that much either. Chinese couples face the same or worse pressures as Western couples in terms of housing, childcare costs and juggling a career. The only country to date that has bucked the trend of higher living standards/smaller families is Israel.

One of Israel’s predominate industries is tech and advertising. This industry has grown on their expertise, but targeting the US market for example, yet their living costs are about 70% lower than US. They therefore have a high standard of living comparatively.