The impending environmental disaster

[413x]

Quite a lot of news articles currently on the local and global environment. Rightly so it's becoming a hotter and hotter (excuse the pun) topic. Especially with the COP summit.

BBC News - Climate change: Fossil fuel production set to soar over next decade
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58971131

We are continuing as a society to move way off course For decarbonising our lives. We are constantly getting told we need to do more by scientists and yet the temp rises keep coming.

Half measures of 5k for heat pumps and small subsides for green initiatives don't go far enough. And apparently UK has a better road map than most countries.



People are now not having kids due to this issue. And I don't blame them. There won't be much left to inherit at the current rate in a lifetime.

Sunak has even said the cost of inaction outweighs the cost of action. Yet still we fall short.


At the local level the house of Lords proposals for more local changes such as cleaning up our rivers has been thrown out.

BBC News - Environment bill: Green groups' dismay as ministers reject changes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58968871



I'm of the opinion we are well into requiring unrealised/unproven/unproductionised technology now being required to curb the problem. Luckily (for myself) I'll probably only feel the tail end of this being mid 30s.

I just don't think we have it in us as a species to turn the tide. It will only be when it's too late that people collectively might go "whoops, should have taken that seriously"

Do any of us think that we are going to escape this worsening situation?

 

[413x]

This govt don't give a crap, it's all lip service.

It's probably a symptom of an older ruling party and voting demographic.
You only care for your self (despite Boris having loads of kids).

If you only have to think of the next 4 years, climate change is no biggy

 

[413x]

They only care about money and they've brainwashed most of the population anyway. How many times do we hear on these forums 'but China...' as a response to environmental concerns...

I was talking to someone yesterday who said 'but China'

Most. Of china's emissions are likely due to the west buying stuff.

 

[413x]

This

Also, we are all hypocrites. In the west, we all demand to have maximum variety in what we eat and drink, which is massively harmful to the environment. Personally i think food indulgence is probably one of the worst things we do as a society (and i'm not claiming to be any sort of saint in that area).

We don't **** need avocados.

Same. I'm well aware I'm a hypocrite too.
I don't eat any meat but I could cut dairy.
Do I really need a 34 in new monitor?

Even people who care can't make the changes and most people don't care.

So I don't see us winning it.

 

[413x]

Problem is that switching to the idea of buying what you "need" rather than what you "want" completely breaks our current economic models of continual growth.

Same as curbing population growth.
Which causes a massive issue.

I'm very much closer to buying what I need than want. Especially with clothes. Also my desktop. Its ancient but its just not worth upgrading.

However I have to admit that's more to do with cost than climate

Next car will hopefully be electric. But as someone who does maybe 20 miles max in a typical week it's probably worse to get an electric due to environmental costs producing it

 

[413x]

None of these Green people ever suggest curtailing population growth, and then reducing it though, which is the obvious fix. I thought Covid might make an indent, but it's a bit of a damp squib from that perspective. Is the UK population still growing despite Covid? India? China? USA?

It's still a taboo. But it is being talked about more in closed groups. But you can't comment on someone's baby pics 'another nail in coffin for climate change'

Think our population is projected to fall without immigration soon.

 

[413x]

I think you are being optimistic there. I think the worse affects of us not doing enough now will start effecting you badly by the time you are mid 50s. You will definitely feel the pain.

Wheres I will be retired and will miss most of the issues.

Start to get the beginning of it I think. Gonna start by moving to a more elevated position soon as a start!

 

[413x]

Reducing population is one of the most effective ways to solve the problem, but it's too little too late now. Besides, most of the population explosion is elsewhere in the world.



Maybe it's one of the filters in the great filter hypothesis to answer Fermi's paradox.

I think scientists and engineers could pull humanity's arse out of the fire just in time. And that "activists" would take the credit as they have more skill in using media and far more time to dedicate to doing so as they're not busy working on solutions to the problems. But I think the main change required is economic rather than technological and it's global. A radical positive change in the entire global economic system in a matter of decades? Tall order. The one we have now is nowhere near sustainable, so it will change. The question is in what way.

Yes. By the time we shift enough focus into productionising what may save our butts it might and probably will be too late.

Look at covid. It was rampant in Italy and we were 'oh it's fine' I remember telling my. Gf. In December this is going to be bad. And at work. Not many believed it.

Even then we couldn't make the grand machine suffer. And it will be the same with climate. Except covid is like a moped. Its fast and easy to stop. Climate change is like a freight train. By time you realise its going to hit you, its too late.

 

[413x]

Got to ask.

What have you done in your personal life to help?

Not enough.
If I was to claim not having kids as a choice because of the environment I would be lying but as a bi product it's the single biggest contribution anyone can make.

Recycling is a bit of a con. It may in some ways be worse as people think its a get out of jail guilt free card. But most doesn't get recycled. And supply chain is poorly traced

I don't drive much but again that's a product of not wanting to commute rather than for environment. I think for me doing so few miles it's actually better to have a used petrol car than a new electric.

I do pick up litter from rivers and my walks by choice. I always pay more for clean electricity (quite easy now)

I don't eat meat but still dairy. But that's for animal Welfare. Again not the environment directly.


My gf who cares a lot more still likes the heating on for example so even when people care they still can't make the compromises.hence why we are doomed.




If correct this graph says a lot. And I don't see how it can be wrong.

 

[413x]

So nothing then.

Never ask someone to do, what you won't do yourself.
I'm all electric now. So I'm a good guy

Not having kids is more than anything else Combined. Even if it isn't for environmental reasons it's absolutely smashing anything else anyone in the west can do out of the park.
In the Western world

 

[413x]

I’m doing everything I can afford to. If anyone wants to buy me better double glazing, a heat pump system, solar panels (have 2 large south facing roofs) and an EV with the same range, interior space and towing capacity as my Duster; I’ll send you my bank details via a Trust message.

I do not understand why instead of things like HS2 government didn't put that cash into things like this.

Imagine how much impact it would have.
On the poorest too. And the environmental side.

 

[413x]

There should be a whopping tax on all imported meat - we don't need to import any. American factory farmed beef is awful in every sense and then needs shipping here too. British beef should not be taxed, and imo nor should british dairy.

Totally agree.
I'd go further and tax meat/dairy in general more. But it's a guaranteed vote loser. But again. Tax needs to be used wisely to move us in right direction

 

[413x]

No, because the 6 biggest firms creating 90% of emissions will still generate that electricity using fossil fuels for as long as they are allowed to. They are allowed to because they invest billions in lobbying moronic governments like yours and mine.

The best you can do is keep your old car and drive it till it rots to absolutely nothing.


Because major infrastructure projects keep people in jobs which means they can afford their own double glazing/insultation. Also, it removes x million cars from the road and changes entire lifestyles.

Arguing to get rid of major infrastructure to insulate a few poxy houses where folk can still leave the window open is a drop in the ocean and sucks up loads of money.

Especially if you do negligible miles.

Do 10 miles a week.
But new electric

All the lithium mining, steel production, shipping. Just not environmentally friendly.
I'm not sure at what point an electric car actually becomes net benefit in miles per week.

 

[413x]

There's always an excuse.

Also. I don't believe just bringing the 3rd world out of poverty is viable in time to lower birth rates.
As said we have too many people. You can't with our current tech bring everyone up to the USA standards.
You'd need less people and thus there would be less cheap labour to make cheap tat for the over users to buy.

Everyone has to have thier standard of living lowered. Less meat, less energy consumption, less kids, less consumerism.

People won't like it. Nobody likes things being taken away. But it's inevitable. The more put it off the sharper the cliff edge will be.

You as an individual might escape it. But your kids?

It really is people who have kids and claim they care about them that baffles me. Fair eneif you're dense enough not to see it coming. But if you are aware of climate disaster. Think it will happen. Have kids and care for them? I just don't get why you wouldn't want these massive changes for thier sake.


Oh, and on China. Apparently increasing the children you can have law isn't very effective as people also have same issue as here. Can't afford or don't want kids. No longer is the law the limiting factor

 

[413x]

Read this

Having fewer kids is not the answer, in the western world at least.

Even this says having fewer kids reduces carbon. But it's bad for humanity.

 

[413x]

I think the stand out is Hs2. So much cost, so little benefit, so much destruction and it was approved.

If things like this are still going ahead those in power obviously don't care (like we know)

 

[413x]

We need the third world to have our western existence. If everyone was on the same level you couldn't have all your cheap tat that we have now. Everyone wants their cake and eat it.

How many people are willing to give that up? The percentage is very small.

This.

Imagine everyone being the average American. The world would just die. Its impossible.

 

[413x]

Specifically of young kids, especially babies. Every baby you kill saves 58.6 tonnes of carbon.

This is true.

 

[413x]

Seeing as you quoted NASA im sure you will love this

There is a nice graph in there showing the warming as well, I dont see how you will dispute it.

I think people like flea find a few papers that dispute consensus, push those out and ignore the majority. Its a bizarre mindset but its similar to conspiracy theory types who select a few 'papers' and point to those to dispute all the others.

 

[413x]

Forgot about that! So with lets say 70 year av lifespan that will be 4,102 tonnes!

So basically what people are saying is the best environmental policy would be the Herod one> - Kill everybodies first born?

Thanos. Just saying!