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?

I read that China are now encouraging families to have three children.

www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-14/china-three-child-policy-competition-for-slogans/100372766

@Fimofriend
Love your list and not yet read beyond it, so apologies if repeating anything.

I have v thick hair and today tried washing with a 1 to 2 apple cider vinegar/water mix - my hair is the softest it's been for a long time, perfectly clean and also not frizzy (I added some Argan oil to the mix). I put it into an old spray bottle and doused my hair thoroughly, left it for a few mins then rinsed off.

I'm not going back!

@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.

Global population 1974 - 4 billion, 2021 7.9 billion.

source : www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate

[quote Daftasabroom]@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]
Educate the boys and men too then. They play an equal part in creating life.

due to people living longer

People will need to start smoking again...As an added bonus it brings in a net gain to national economies through taxes and lower pension and social care costs.

Although actually in the UK life expectancy has already stagnated. I expect it will go down soon. Poverty - and particularly lack of access to secure affordable housing - is the main reason. A bit shit really. Lower quality of life, shorter life expectancy...might as well smoke. Better to die early from something that gives pleasure and stress relief than die early purely from a life of unrelenting grind, misery, and poverty.

Just because the enactment of China's one child policy was done badly, doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea. The problem of Chinese men without female partners is the consequence of misogyny, not the one child policy.

@Daftasabroom saying that the government and big business need to sort this out is not saying individuals should carry on as they are. When you say you work in this field - FWIW - ALL big businesses are building sustainability road maps, I work in this field and they are generally bricking themselves it seems to me that tiny tiny nano steps have been taken in the last 20 years. What exactly is being envisaged by the "sustainability road map"? What needs to happen is that some industries cease operation and reinvest 100pc in renewables and there needs to be regulation on other industries eg bottle production, plastic, mobile phones, any cheap technology, any limited lifespan activity to prevent it - only governments and big businesses will be able to agree those terms - is that going to happen?

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 what you are saying here sounds somewhat disingenuous as because you work in the field you will know that what individuals do is in fact a drop in the (polluted) ocean compared to what governments and big businesses can do, and there is only so much individuals can do if they have realistic renewable options. Putting a lot of pressure on individuals has in reality, also, turned man on man in many areas - eg the environmental groups near us are aggressive and threaten violence to mothers in cars with small children - that is what happens when you push the burden onto individuals without thought about consequences - it does not help. Obviously individuals who are aware and care will be making changes.

*if they do not have realistic renewable options

[quote ThirdElephant]I read that China are now encouraging families to have three children.

www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-14/china-three-child-policy-competition-for-slogans/100372766[/quote]
China's new three child policy isn't really working though, because they don't have the infrastructure for it. The vast majority of modern housing is only large enough for two adults & one child. Many young adults have to work extraordinary hours just to afford to live. The 996 work culture: 9am - 9pm, 6 days a week is apparently pretty common in companies like Alibaba & many higher paid jobs, this would not take into account the commute time which can be a couple of hours each way, adding up to a 16 hour day. 96 hours a week for what is essentially just an average office or factory job, & sometimes both partners might do this. Of course any children then have to be put into childcare, which is extortionately expensive. Education is also expensive due to additional tutors etc, unless you're happy for your child to be stuck in the absolute bottom tier of jobs for their entire life, which would mean they would not be financially able to support their parents & grandparents (there is negligible social provision for this). Plus, socially, the current generation has just been absolutely indoctrinated with the idea that any more than one child is unacceptable, so most people of childbearing age really don't want more than one child. It is no wonder people don't want more than one child, & there is the growing social movement of "lying flat".

Should I be concerned about where the soy comes from? Is there a reputable way to trace its origin?

Soy is far better than beef, you'll be responsible for around 20 times less CO2e for the same amount of protein if you eat the soy rather than feeding it to the cow to create beef.

There is also leather production. So think twice before buying that extra pair of shoes or a handbag.

Although actually in the UK life expectancy has already stagnated. I expect it will go down soon. Poverty - and particularly lack of access to secure affordable housing - is the main reason.

Nothing to do with all the obesity, junk food, booze, lack of exercise then.

@GreatAuntEmily

Although actually in the UK life expectancy has already stagnated. I expect it will go down soon. Poverty - and particularly lack of access to secure affordable housing - is the main reason.

Nothing to do with all the obesity, junk food, booze, lack of exercise then.

You just highlighted several of the key consequences of a life of poverty, misery - and a reactive rather than proactive preventative physical and mental healthcare system. (As an aside, nicotine is an appetite suppressant.)

@HasaDigaEebowai

Should I be concerned about where the soy comes from? Is there a reputable way to trace its origin?

Soy is far better than beef, you'll be responsible for around 20 times less CO2e for the same amount of protein if you eat the soy rather than feeding it to the cow to create beef.

Funnily enough the beef animals around here eat grass.

Funnily enough the beef animals around here eat grass

If you’re in the UK then yes some will (about 70%).

In much of the rest of the world, particularly the big beef producers such as the US and South America, they are mainly kept indoors and eat animal feed. So if you’re buying beef then but British beef.

@Bluebellsinparadise I think your analysis is wrong here: 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 Yes I do understand how policy process in the UK works - and also how UK policy fits with other jurisdictions and global policy. UK policy can react to emergencies. CCC is bumbling along and there are some positive things - but what we have is a global emergency and policy making should be reacting - with other jurisdictions - as such.

Yes it is extremely complex and what is happening, what you describe, is not sufficient - not competent to deal with contributing to negotiations about how the global emergency is being dealt with.

I understand your frustration, but I personally find it incredibly frustrating that the people you refer to as professionals in this area post things like "there are some positives" - it is clear looking back at what has been happening for decades and this is not enough - and "individuals must take responsibility" without acknowledging how unrealistic this is is as a policy to bring about climate change in the face of sophisticated marketing and advertising

@HasaDigaEebowai

Funnily enough the beef animals around here eat grass

If you’re in the UK then yes some will (about 70%).

In much of the rest of the world, particularly the big beef producers such as the US and South America, they are mainly kept indoors and eat animal feed. So if you’re buying beef then but British beef.

Are you a farmer?

@Bluebellsinparadise - this is just one short extract from the most recent CCC technical report which illustrates my concerns:

"None of the current and future risks to business from climate change identified in the second Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA2) have decreased in magnitude. This partly reflects an improved ability to assess and report these risks, but it also reflects that business decisions continue to create additional risk by locking in increased exposure and vulnerability.
● Confidence in risk assessments is growing with better quality analysis and more sophisticated analytical approaches emerging, but limitations still exist. For example, it is often unclear if and how risks with low likelihood and high impact indirect risks and interdependencies are being considered by businesses. There is a lack of focus in particular on quantifying indirect losses, despite these potentially having significant implications for different business functions (in particular for B1, B2). [...]
● A further concern are lock-ins that occur when business decisions ‘lock in’ future climate risk that may be irreversible or costly to revert later. There is evidence of lock-in through riskinsensitive behaviour. This can occur through businesses’ decisions on operating models, site locations, infrastructure, supply chains, technologies, policies, or pre-existing adaptation actions, which may increase exposure to long-term risks. Lock-ins are concerning when they result in higher magnitude of risk due to slow adaptation or mal-adaptive response (B1, B2, B3, B6)
● The focus in this chapter is on domestic (from climate change in the UK) risks. However, a key source of risk for many UK businesses is the result of climate change outside the UK which affects UK businesses through investments, supply chains, distribution networks and other business relationships. Climate change outside the UK may further affect UK

@derxa where I am in France most of the fields around me are used to farm maize which is then harvested to be used as animal feed

as an aside, the tap water here cannot be used for drinking or cooking for vulnerable people including pregnant women and young children because the nitrates are far, far higher than safe levels, people have to use bottled water for some things - high levels presumed to do with farming practices

Are you a farmer?

No - and I know you are. I’m a lawyer. I just know quite a lot about the impact of beef consumption on climate change for various reasons.

Happy to say (as I did up thread) that it’s far better to eat British beef if you must eat beef.

there is only so much individuals can do if they have realistic renewable options. Putting a lot of pressure on individuals has in reality, also, turned man on man in many areas - eg the environmental groups near us are aggressive and threaten violence to mothers in cars with small children - that is what happens when you push the burden onto individuals without thought about consequences - it does not help. Obviously individuals who are aware and care will be making changes.

and "individuals must take responsibility" without acknowledging how unrealistic this is is as a policy to bring about climate change in the face of sophisticated marketing and advertising

I kind of get what you are saying, but households are the source of a lot of polluting energy use. That is undeniable.
I posted on another thread about how impoverishing the lower classes in favour of enabling the wealth of the rich, specifically with respect to housing, really hasn't helped, and I have made comments on here in a similar vein. It is the richest groups who consume the most, simply because they have the means to do so. Inequality is bad for us all: the need for conspicuous consumption to protect the status of richer groups is what's driving a lot of issues. I can barely begin to express my frustrations, as someone from a poorer background, with the inability of those better off groups to cope with "sophisticated marketing and advertising" in the face of climate change.

I haven't heard of the kind of violence you describe, but incidentally it sounds like "man on woman" violence, not "man on man".

pickupapepper I understand what you mean but in relation to what you say about poverty, really cheap household items which are built to last a year are the sort of things poorer households buy - eg the example I gave upthread about vacuums - there are many more examples. You find flat screen tvs and latest tech phones in really poor areas because of various ways to access. This is all contributing to piles of rubbish. Also cheap fashion obviously. And it is the young, new in jobs, new to a wage, who is targeted by advertising, isn't it? So people from both rich and poor backgrounds? I take your point about the very rich, obviously - but given that many are the children of the people who profited from the poor practices of industries causing most damage to the environmentin the first place maybe not shocking

@iseeu I agree that lower income households are making choices that are less sustainable even though they have less impact than richer groups. But on mass it has a massive impact.

The environmental groups are however really bad at engaging lower income groups. Does anyone know why? I wonder why they are not using media influencers for example that connect with that group. It seems to me that the environmental movement is elitist. It’s made by and for the well educated people in society, also predominantly white.

The environmental movement has a diversity problem in the UK. Whereas I know in Brazil it’s more grassroots and working class.

Let’s face it, worrying about the environment is for ‘well to do’ people in the U.K. That needs to change.

It’s a missed opportunity. My CM and Aunt- both working class - have started talking about the environment for the first time I can remember because it was reported in the daily mail and they’re scared about their grandchildren’s future. The environmental movement needs to capitalise on this and help them make changes. But the movement doesn’t speak for/ speak for them.

Speak to/ speak for

Perhaps it is something to do with the way established middle class people who haven’t really known what it is to live worrying about where their next meal is coming from persisting in blaming poorer people for the damage? The stats back up the common sense knowledge that excessive use of resources causes environmental trouble, and that is the preserve of those who have the finances to consume mindlessly. Where the impact of poorest people is high it is directly due to the societal choices preventing them from investing in their lives, for instance in housing, or the examples and influence of the rich pushing conspicuous consumption as the only social value through the media. They hold much more of the power of change, not the poorest. That said, it is well-off middle groups who come out with the excuses about how they shouldn’t be expected to change while others aren’t ime. People need to be much more aware of their wealth. I have centred ecological living on much less wealth than most in Britain. Ecological living and economic living go hand-in-hand.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-richest-1-cause-double-co2-emissions-of-poorest-50-says-oxfam

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/19/life-earth-wealth-megarich-spending-power-environmental-damage