to boycott products made in China and India?

[Lowkeyloopy]

So angry that they have watered down an agreement aimed at saving the planet that my (shortly to be born) child will be living in.

Yes people will say it’s unfair that the more developed economies have enjoyed all the benefits of burning fossil fuels and are now dictating that other countries should stop. Well, tough. We are where we are and the world is on fire.

I’m also sick and tired of people saying that individuals can’t make a difference, AND of the government congratulating itself on bringing down our own carbon emissions. We don’t MAKE anything in this country - we ship it in from other countries. If we all stopped buying crap we don’t need that is manufactured on the cheap in those countries, we could actually help ensure those countries cut their carbon emissions and genuinely bring down our own individual carbon footprints.

So I guess I’m angry at China and India for watering down the COP agreement, but I’m angry at us for creating the circumstances that facilitates the attitude that made them do that.

So, I’ll now be even more consciously checking where my products are from and will not be buying anything made in China or India.

Who’s with me? (YANBU)

Who’s not? And why, out of interest? (YABU)

Happy Sunday all…!

@Tealightsandd

So actually India is trying to tackle the issues - in a way that won't plunge the poor into even worse poverty, through limiting access to essential resources.

Much kinder to promote smaller families than make essential resources too expensive for those with less money.

The UK should take note.

The UK doesn't have a problem there because procreation levels are lower than what's needed to sustain or grow population levels.

Smaller families are a byproduct of educating women. I’m all for that path personally.

It’s an interesting turn of events that China now can’t convince people (of particular socioeconomic groups which leads to a different debate altogether) to have more than one child and they’re facing an inverse pyramid aged population. I think Germany have faced similar issues and as are we to a lesser extent. This brings its own problems to replace the ones it solves.

Tbh population levels are more of an issue due to how long people live and avoid death throughout their lives due to medical advances rather than birth rates. It’s not really palatable to start withholding access to medical help though…. Restricting birth rates leads to a heavy burden on the young since we’re ‘old’ a lot longer than we’re young these days.

The way the policy was implemented in some regions was terrible. But that doesn't mean the actual idea of smaller families was wrong.

I disagree. Mandating one child per family directly caused infanticide of female babies. It was a natural consequence of having a one child law punishable by prison sentence and sterilisation. It means any Autocratic solution to the problem of high birth rates will result in murder/suffering.

Whereas, in all the countries where there is no law limiting family size and women are simply given full reproductive rights and the freedom to choose if/when and how many children, the birth rate naturally goes below replacement level. The proven solution is one the Libertarian solution.

What everyone else said. It’s really rich writing a post such as that when you are doing it in a phone or computer. Guess you only want to boycott the things that are convenient to do so?

@HarrisonStickle
The UK doesn't have a problem there because procreation levels are lower than what's needed to sustain or grow population levels.

Exactly, UK is at 1.53 children per woman, well below the 2.1 zero growth/replacement level.

I highly recommend reading "Consumed" by Aja Barber, it is a real eye opener.

According to data provided by the Climate Watch by World Resources Institute, India emits 7.1% of global emissions and has per capita emissions of about 2.47 Tco2e (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent), as compared to the global average of 6.45 tco2/per capita. In comparison to top emitters, India’s per capita emissions are seven times lower than that of the United States, 3.4 times lower compared to China’s and three times lower compared to the EU.

If you feel this strongly then why do you have dc? Why do you own electronic devices? Why do you have a car (I assume)? Go and live in a shack in the woods with no electricity.

@HoppingPavlova

What everyone else said. It’s really rich writing a post such as that when you are doing it in a phone or computer. Guess you only want to boycott the things that are convenient to do so?

The idea that China is the problem shows how little people know. It's US who are doing the consuming.

So if all the countries with excess consumption levels were to sort themselves out, there would be natural decline elsewhere.

As usual, we don't want to generally speaking want to do much ourselves which is why we blame other countries.

My understanding is that we could move to better manufacturing methods but it will cost more.

@user1493222657

According to data provided by the Climate Watch by World Resources Institute, India emits 7.1% of global emissions and has per capita emissions of about 2.47 Tco2e (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent), as compared to the global average of 6.45 tco2/per capita. In comparison to top emitters, India’s per capita emissions are seven times lower than that of the United States, 3.4 times lower compared to China’s and three times lower compared to the EU.

It is all too easy to blame teeming brown people with 8 children for the problem. I don't know a single Indian person with more than 2 children myself. There is a natural decline in fertility because Indian women are getting more educated. My mom was one of 8 children. Every one of her siblings has had no more than 2. Their children have had no more than 2 and in most cases, 1. They all have small carbon footprints, because no or only 1 car, vegetarian, minimal consumption.

I am disappointed by India's actions at COP. BUT it is an incredibly complex issue and can't just be put down to "India choosing economy over the climate."

A little bit of CO2 isn’t a bad thing as it’s delaying the next Ice Age. So we don’t need to go carbon zero, just carbon lower.

I understand the whole 'have less children' idea but can't understand the 'have no children' idea. We'd die out as a species and the last few living would have as grim a life as those experiencing the future effects of climate change.

Also, China and India may emit large amounts of co2, but they are large countries with large populations. The US is 2nd in the list, but they have a smaller population! The US should clean up its act. They demand and consume.

I’ve been trying to do this for a few years . Good luck, it’s really difficult 😞

Do you mean only products fully made in India or China or any items assembled anywhere in the world if they contain any component made in India or China ?

Because you'll be going without, well, pretty much everything and I seriously doubt the number of people needed to force change would do the same.

Rather than the focus being on items not being made in certain countries, it should be on how such items can be made in a better way, wherever they are made.

Also, a human being is the worst offender in regards to climate change based on statistical lifestyle/ consumption per person in previous years and the assumption the consumption will continue on that trajectory.

There has already been dramatic lifestyle changes in comparison to 5 to 10 years which changes our offence level significantly.

I like your sentiment but I think you will find it impossible to carry out.
FYI we make plenty in this country, I run a small business of my own where I make things in this country, with the quality far superior to that for sale in the conglomerates, but people like buying the cheap tat, even though a lot of it is far more expensive than what I sell.

The UK doesn't have a problem there because procreation levels are lower than what's needed to sustain or grow population levels.

We don't need to grow or sustain we need to reduce our population levels.

A great lifestyle change is also not having pet dogs, after all 1 dog is equivalent to owning and driving two 4x4 Range Rovers...

Average-size dog – 770 kg of CO2e per year
Large dog – 2,500kg of CO2e per year

The biggest contributor to the carbon “pawprint” is what we put in our pet’s bowl every day. In an eye-opening US report, UCLA professor Gregory Okin explains how America’s cats’ and dogs’ eating habits are responsible for releasing as many as 64 million tons of greenhouse gases every year. That’s roughly the equivalent of driving over 13 million cars.

Meaning your average canine’s carbon footprint is twice that of a 4x4 car.

@Mouseonmychair

The UK doesn't have a problem there because procreation levels are lower than what's needed to sustain or grow population levels.

We don't need to grow or sustain we need to reduce our population levels.

The only way to do that is to limit immigration. U.K. birth rate is at 1.53, well below zero growth birth rate of 2.1. 100% of U.K. population increase is due to net immigration. Not a popular fact, but a fact nonetheless.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@HarrisonStickle
The UK doesn't have a problem there because procreation levels are lower than what's needed to sustain or grow population levels.

Exactly, UK is at 1.53 children per woman, well below the 2.1 zero growth/replacement level.[/quote]
Yet we have a growing population?? These people must be coming from somewhere. As it doesn't really matter if a body is imported or created in the UK it is still a body consuming at British standards. Perhaps we need tougher immigration laws then.

Sorry cross post so it looks like we need stronger immigration controls. Lol that will drive some Mumsneters wild.

Ah we are now in DM territory.

YANBU to want to but it would be very very difficult.