What are you NOT giving up for climate change?

[TheBeesKnee]

As in, something you know would be beneficial and you actively refuse to do it.

I refuse to take 4 minute showers. My showers last 15-20 minutes, 30 if I've had a really bad day. A nice hot shower relaxes me and I can't abide the thought of feeling stressed in there trying to wash before the clock runs out.

To balance this out so that you don't all think I'm a terrible person, I was vegan for 10 years 🙈

Just wondering what others are clinging on to?

Nope, I don't see it at all.

It's like counting scope 3 emissions with scope 1.

I mean it's simple math.

Let's say your emissions are x. You're 25 and you have two children.

You and your husband have 2x emissions. You've had two children which is now 2x + 2x

You die at 70 - that's 50 years of double emissions directly coming from your decision to bring children into this equation, instead of emissions remaining at 2x.

If you didn't have children, the emissions would remain roughly twice as low, or even if your kids are very eco friendly, it would still remain lower if you didn't have them at all.

If you don't understand basic math I don't think it can be explained any further.

@Miajk I guessing you don't understand emissions scopes?

I do, but they're not really relevant to this pretty simple equation. Regardless of the scope, regardless of how eco friendly your kids are, your decision to consciously add humans to this planet who will consume resources results in increased emissions.

Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Because it's flawed logic. If the entire human population of the planet had two children per couple, and if the age of death remained constant, and if per capita emissions remained constant, so would total emissions.

You're counting the same thing multiple times. You also assume that their emissions do not reach net zero.

You're promulgating a dangerous myth that children are an environmental catastrophe, which is simply untrue. It also deflects from the really simple message that we need to stop burning fossil fuels. There are posters on this thread claiming they do what they like as the they don't have children, it just doesn't stack up and does a huge amount of damage.

Emissions scopes are absolutely relevant because they are the accepted and well documented standards for carbon accounting. Random invention of new accounting practices based on extreme dogma helps noone.

The specific thing about having DC in the UK is that any child born in the developed West uses around 4 times more resources than a child born in the global South.

If the entire human population of the planet had two children per couple, and if the age of death remained constant, and if per capita emissions remained constant, so would total emissions.

so, by your own admission, you admit that they would be lower and not constant if the entire population didn't have two children but instead one or zero?

You're so close to getting the point. Almost there.

Nope, still where I started. Double counting emissions will and does lead to false doctrine.

As you prove.

So you really believe that your 4 person household consuming food and energy is exactly the same as a household of just two people who don't have kids?

I can't tell if this is an issue with your maths, logic, or just pure denial? I'm leaning towards crazy denial.

Actually, if I thought it would help, I would give up my car or travelling by plane or using plastic or anything else shown to harm the planet. But I believe it's too late. People will NOT give up their dependence on fossil fuels, especially not the governments and the mega wealthy.

I understand that bringing a new person into the world (especially into an industrialised country) adds to the global emissions total. I’m just confused by the way some people are counting personal emissions totals. If your children’s emissions count towards your total, are my emissions part of my parents’ total? And are theirs part of their parents’ total?

My paternal grandparents had five children and currently have more than 35 living descendants. That’s far more than the average person of my generation will have, especially as we’re having children later in life.

Question for people who are actively trying to do their bit for the climate:
If everybody did as you are doing, what would happen in regards to the climate? How do you propose to go on living your life if (realistically) we have to live in huts and build fires and eat leaves etc.

There's no need to be reductive. There is an option somewhere between our current levels of unbridled over consumption and leaf eating/hut dwelling.

Even if everyone agreed to ditch plastic throwaway toys and stocking fillers, Christmas crackers and pointless 'secret Santa' gifts that would probably make some dent in the emissions created by China that we constantly fuel in our endless desire for yet more tat and possessions.

Where's the hardship there?

@fullbloom87 absolutely nobody is suggesting we live huts, burn fires, and eat leaves. Where on earth did you get that idea?

I’m vegan for ethical and environmental reasons, more people could reduce their meat consumption or move to plant-based, it’s harmful for the planet and the animals but most people don’t care enough.

But you realise that's the only way to fully solve this right.
You won't be able to have electricity and you'll have to source your food locally. You won't even be able to build a normal house because that requires energy and resources that aren't local. No internet or banking either. No medicine. The whole world will have to stop and just live in tribes.

@meatbaseddessert
No it doesn't work that way. You have rose tinted glasses on. You think you're going to be able to carry on as long as you use eco friendly washing detergent and eat avocado and quinoa instead of burgers. But of those things are just to make you feel like you're doing your part but the reality is you're undoing any of the good you think you're doing just by going on your phone everyday . If you're really that serious you'll all have to start living in tribes and off the land because that's literally the only way.

@fullbloom87 have you not seen the wind farms and solar panels being installed across the country and globe?

Yes but do you honestly think Solar and wind is going to generate enough energy at the rate we need it for an industrial world. Again rose tinted glasses.

fullbloom87
There is a vast, vast gulf between "living off the land and living in tribes" (wtf? 🙄) and doing nothing at all.

Properly insulated, warm homes, cheaper electricity, greener neighbourhoods with more room for children to play and vastly increased public transport are all things that would both combat climate change AND make our lives easier and more pleasant.

My house has been 90% functioning off grid this spring and summer (Uk) thanks to
our solar panels. The Uk doesn’t get half the amount of sun the rest of the world gets, yet it is abundant for a household like mine and it could be for million of other households too.
I have not given up my using my washing machine, oven, dishwasher etc. I fill up my EV for free and hot water is always available, again thanks to the immersion heating via solar.
The potential is there yet we keep coming up with excuses as to why it’s not feasible.
If every household is fitted with solar panels we would significantly decrease our electric bills and carbon emissions.
Winter will of course be difficult to be more self sufficient, but that doesn’t mean it is not worth it, as solar still generates some power even on the cloudiest days. Imagine what these powerful things can do in countries where they have decent sunshine pretty much all year round, and what that means for even hotter countries? They can power their air conditioning units carbon free from solar. Excess energy can
be stored to be used at night using home batteries. This thread is so depressing because we don’t have to give up many of the things mentioned on this thread. Sustainable living is doesn’t have to compromise the quality of your life as many keep saying.
What needs to be done is subsidise the cost of transitioning to green sustainable energy and make it available
to everybody.
Even if you don’t think climate change is real, no one wants to breath toxic poisonous air.

Exactly. It's frustrating to see how many people saying 'meat' on this thread.

Just reducing their meat consumption would make a big difference. It would almost certainly benefit their health and finances as well.

I think you’re assuming that people like me who won’t give up meat are eating it daily when perhaps they’re already only eating it once or twice a week.

You do your cause no good at all by being so blinkered by your thoughts.

So, I've been told by solar panel companies that I can't have them as I have dormer windows and they take up too much of the roof. What do I do? Can't have a heat pump as Victorian house and can't get it insulated, what do I do? We are trying a 1 size fits all approach in this country and it doesn't work.