So, if we´re really as screwed environmentally as they say we are.....

[chocolatequeen]

how come there seems to be very little being done to FORCE people to behave better?

All I´ve been hearing on the news is about oil, rubbish, energy, fish stocks, over farming etc etc. but not much action being taken. I heard one statistic that unless drastic action is taken now, within 5 years it will be too late to turn it around. If this really is a feasible outcome, why the hell aren´t govts stepping in? In the winter of discontent, power supplies were limited, petrol virtually rationed etc. Why isn´t the same being done now?

If there aren´t enough fish left, then we will just have to go without fish, or pay a premium for it. If there is not enough space for rubbish, start taxing packaging. Stop selling lightbulbs other than energy saving ones.

I don´t think that people can be trusted on their own to do the right thing (ie recycle all their rubbish, turn off computers, not waste petrol etc) so therefore shouldn´t it be enforced? Or is that the route towards a dictatorship.....

I agree. I started a thread a while back about the same thing.
I was reading an article about it and it was saying how we should be doing certain things to make a difference. Like buying a "greener" car, use buses and trains, not to use budget aircraft as they operate more frequently therefore creating more pollution so fly with commercial airlines.

The list was endless and also ridiculous. If things are that bad then I do agree, there should be some enforcement because not everyone will do their bit to help.

Totally agree CQ. I think the answer is economics and politics - governments are too afraid of business and losing out in trade agreements to say "you are no longer allowed to make this damaging item" - although it has happened with a few things, eg CFCs. What's odd is that consumerism is actually getting more and more extreme. I think there will soon be a big backlash and economic downturn, and eventually governments will have to do something.

What also puzzles me is why aren't they absolutely pouring money into researching clean renewables and trying to find a scientific solution to the excess of CO2? You hardly ever hear anything about that.

India has no real environmental policy, for example.

India also has problems from time to time w/stability in government.

So how are you going to force people into submission.

Hold on, are you advocating the Nanny State? I think a lot of people in the UK will suffer a coronary at that suggestion .

I think there is a lot of misleading information out there and the govt needs to provide more leadership in terms of honesty, clarity and intent on this matter, imo. For example, the issue of foodmiles is so misleading. Some campaigners say that we should not be eating fruit from countries like Mozambique or coffee from Uganda (two of the poorest nations on earth btw) because the amount of pollution associated with bringing them to this country. What they don't tell you is that the carbon footprint of locally produced food can be much higher than that from a foreign land. The BBC did something on this a while ago and it was real eye opener.

Just look at the debate about the wearing of real fur. Synthetic fur is proposed as an alternative by those against real fur but what they conveniently ignore is that it would be made from petrochemical derivatives (mainly acrylic) but where is the environmental logic in that?

Then you've got the odd situation on the Isle of Lewis with the proposed 30-odd mile windfarm that will kill all the birds and be an utter eyesore. It's hard to believe that a power station in one spot would be more damaging to the environment.

I think half the problem is that there aren't clear cut easy answers to the issues. So, yeah, if it's really the big issue that we are under the impression it is, then compulsion would seem to be the obvious solution. But compulsory what?

I receive bulletins from DFID and they are doing a lot to try and improve environmental sustainability for the developing countries, here .

Lets be honest, the poor countries are the ones on the receiving end of the negative impact of climate change thanks to the over-indulgence of all us in the developed world.

I would imagine that it would have to be a case of lead by example expat, ie initiated by developed countries, who cause the most damage and consume the most, and also have the most money and resources to put a system into place. I´m sure that there isn´t the huge amount of personal waste for example in India like there is in Europe and the States. It just needs to be dealt with if all these reports are to be believed, and if so, then it should be government initiated.

I don´t agree in principle with a nanny state, god almighty some of the things you read in the Daily Mail are shocking , but if it is coming down to the fact that if there is not some sort of compulsion to be environmentally friendly then our grandchildren will not survive, I don´t think there´s much choice?

Oh nanny state my arse. (I know you're joking btw but...) I hate that phrase. Strangely it's always used by people who are pretty damn keen on hanging, flogging and locking up criminals and throwing away the key. They're quite happy for drugs to be bannned, for yobs to be persectued, etc. What "nanny state" means is "I don't want any rules that limit my freedom, but I do want rules for everyone else". It pisses me off because strong governmnt is what this environmental situation needs and it can be threatened by some Daily Mail twat going "oh boo hoo, but if you don't let us drive 4x4s it's a nanny state." Pah!

Go lepoard go......eat the norty daily mailers.

the govt are in the pockets of the oil industry, the nuclear industry and the weapons industry. everything is short term profit. the environment will be somebody else's problem when they are dead and gone.

The oil industry knows there is only a limited supply of oil and they are funding a huge amount of research to look at environmentally sustainable alternatives - I have been involved in some projects at work. Look at how BP is marketing itself now. British Petroleum has metamorphisised into Beyond Petroleum.

As for the nuclear question, we need a source of energy. With oil and gas running out, other than increasing our dependency on coal, what viable alternatives are there to plug the energy gap that current environmentally sustainable methods such as wind farms, solar power etc cannot currently meet? Prof Tony Ryan at Sheffield University (you may have seen him on TV in 2002 when he did the Royal Institute Christmas Lectures) published this article in Chemistry World in 2005 and it provides a sobering consideration of why we should not be over zealous in dismissing nuclear energy.

At least the government, oil industry and other comapanies are contributing to The Energy Trust which is a huge step in the right direction. They advertise their services on TV but I wonder how many people actually take notice of them? Obviously, a lot more needs to be done but it does behove the public to become active themselves as oppose to apathetic bystanders.

Check out the Commit to Save 20% campaign on the Energy Saving Trust site. Imagine what energy savings could be achieved in only 25% of the people in the country did this (obviously 100% would be great but that will never happen without some of compulsion).

really interesting thread...just quick btw ...was anyone else shocked by the mumsnet festive tips sent by email that included using 98p foil trays to save on washing up!
It may sound petty to some, its just this flippant throwaway attitude that gets me, where do folk think this stuff goes?
Take a family trip to the local muncipal tip this holiday scarier than alton towers anyday!
Its the little things like this that we have control over.

Rewards work better than punishment...so for example tax breaks for being eco-friendly instead of tax increases for being eco-unfriendly...make eco-friendly stuff cheaper for manufacturers to provide by giving them incentives so they can sell them for less so we will buy them because they are cheaper or equal in price to the 'normal' ones.

and yes I cringed at the foil trays tip too...

Very interesting Q. I think the onus should be on the producer not the consumer to reduce waste packaging like a shrink wrapped box with a bag inside . If they don't make it, you can't chuck it in landfill! Similarly if they didnt ship food halfway round the world you would have to buy locally, why do we have to have strawberries in winter etc etc? Don't know how you would implement this tho, people being so fond of "choice" and all
Oh, and you should definately not be able to illuminate santas outside your house for half the winter!

Yellowvan, the foodmiles issue is not as simple as it sounds. Research has shown imported food actually impacts the environment less than that locally produced. The BBC did something on it earlier this year based on this .

Havent looked at link but is that the heated tomatoes? I know it isn't staight forward but I think producers/retailers should take the rap a bit. It annoys me that "the individual" is often at the centre of it eg turn YOUR telly off standby, recycle the packaging on YOUR groceries, but these are small things, corpoations, governments and big buisness should take responsibility too.

Totally agree.
I'm also interested in the issue of greenhouse gases. Methane, like carbon dioxide, is a greenhouse gas. One cow emits 0.25kg of methane per day, there are approx 1.3 billion cattle in the world so imagine how much methane is being produced per minute.

Also, rice agriculture is possibly the biggest source of anthropogenic methane. Rice paddies cover about 130 million hectares of the earth's surface, of which almost 90% are in Asia, and emits 50 to 100 million metric tons of methane a year. Then you have the methane emitted from sources like vulcanoes, marine life (they along with cows account for 50-60% of methane emitted) etc before considering that from landfill sites, oil and coal production, transport etc.

When you consider all these factors, the reality is, the solutions are not as straightforward as we think. We also have to ask ourselves if there is a disconnect between the scale of the contribution we have to provide to dent the overall levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to what we can realistically do.

A good discussion, unlike alot of threads on this forum!

All individuals have to do their bit, voluntarily or by legislation and businesses and government also. We need very strong leaders for tackling environmental issues; at community, national, regional and international levels.

NGOs must lead by example if they are to get more people on board with their message. For example, stop flying around the world to conferences! Utilize video conferencing instead.

There are answers to lessening our environmental impacts with;

1. technology
2. resource management
3. less consumerism (changes in attitude)
4. economic instruments (taxes and subsidies)
5. sciences

However, we do have to adapt to the climate changes happening around us as well because 'tipping points' have already been triggered. See Siberian Timebomb . Humans don't give up but, nature is ultimately king (or queen!).

Radio 2 have just been discussing what plausible steps individuals can take to start going green. The Moneysavingexpert guru Martin Lewis was on the programme and said that at the moment, Netto are selling energy saving bulbs for 49p and John Lewis are selling them for 99p. They usually retail between £3-4.

I have energy saving bulbs and I received them all from British Gas free of charge. Every so often, they place little adds in free newspapers inviting readers to return the slip with their details and they send you 2 or 3 free energy bulbs. I've done this a couple of times now and have received 6 free energy bulbs from them. You have to have an eagle eye to spot the advert but it is worth the effort.

In addition, the Energy Trust, that I mentioned in a post below, give out grants to homes who want to change to a more energy efficient boiler, or install solar panels etc but how much you get, if at all, does depend on your postcode but you can find that out from the website.

The Carbon Trust are like the Energy Trust but for business so if you want to help your company to start going green, this would be a good place to start.

I think the problem is that politics is short-term (only 4-5 years a term) -- and that the environmental commitment is a big long term one

Good point Bluejelly. I wonder if The Environment Agency has enough clout and independence carrying them through different governments. Like the Bank of England now has (supposedly).