Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Captain...

Climate change: What can we do?

Recommended Posts

Anybody born in the seventies onwards would have grown up knowing the potential effects of climate change.We've heard nothing else.You would think that successive governments haven’t lifted a finger when that’s simply not true.

 

In my life time there have been major changes to how we as a country treat the environment.From recycling to smoke free zones.Unleaded petrol to major domestic insulation programmes.The list goes on.Ive seen the ozone layer get broken and then fixed.Leicester was Britain’s 1st environmental city.We are world leaders in the advancement of renewable energy.

 

I do remember however as a young teen in the late 80s,the predictions made about what would happen by 2020 if we didn’t  change our ways.Norfolk and the fens would be gone for starters.The Sahara desert would have spread into Southern Europe.Average winter temperatures were due to be 13c in England and the thermometer would regularly hit the 40s in summer.All the south sea islands gone along with 95% of the rainforests.We have gone past ten year points of no return again and again.So for me the threat of a Third World War is the biggest danger.That is never more than a couple of weeks away.Just like it used to be before climate change took over.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I genuinely find that somewhat bizarre. For me its almost always the fault of the message carriers. It always matter who is delivering a message and so if you, as someone heavily invested in inspiring positive activity, want to message to carry you should be bothered about who is carrying. You should be bothered about the double standards cos it affects the cause. A message from someone that doesn't even come close to abiding by what they are saying doesn't really help, particularly when their self-importance is getting in the way of ordinary people using public transport ffs. Because really what the whole thing comes as is to me, maybe to others or maybe not, is a group of people wanting to world run their way for which the environment is a proxy - even if its not I think it damages the cause rather than advances it.

 

Similarly, you'd also be worried about the exact message that is conveyed. The catastrophism isn't particularly useful, it inspires fatalism because it starts to look insurmountable. Need more positive selling (clean world=nicer experience of the world) or even simplify and disseminate those infographics rather than pure catastrophism. 

 

6 hours ago, MattP said:

I'm quite up for the Emma Thompson style of climate change activism actually. 

 

I'm going to carry on as normal, as many flights as I want, eat what I want but I'll tell people fighting climate change is important as it's the message that's crucial.

 

Never thought of myself as a green activist but this sounds OK to be honest.

I find the assertion that the outcome of an natural event that, unless addressed, is going to happen no matter how the news is delivered is somehow the responsibility of those delivering that news as illogical as you find my stance on this bizarre, tbh Kopf. As you're someone who I think normally deals in logic, I find that particular stance here odd too.

 

However, I guess that perception (particularly majority perception) does matter rather than what actually is true in a lot of cases as ego is a thing and so if a lot of people think that way (and it seems like they do) then my viewpoint on the matter is irrelevant - perhaps I don't understand the psychology of people to act irrationally enough. And at the end of the day, what matters is what needs to get done, gets done - never mind how - so I can see what you're saying about the way the message is delivered.

 

WRT the message itself, if you want me to disseminate those infographics I posted above I can do so. The scientific talking heads have been telling folks what is going on, and what needs to be done, for years, if not decades. Evidently, however, there's a disconnect with scientific communication to the general public - a pretty common problem, sadly - which means that people just seem to be seeing the end of the world rather than the solutions crafted to avoid it. (Pardon me for floating a conspiracy here, however, but I think quite a bit of that bad communication is being crafted deliberately through misinformation by certain vested interests who want things to stay as they are because they care nothing for the future - what better way to discredit a prediction than to over-exaggerate it like this?)

 

Honestly, I'm not sure what more can be done to make folks aware of the problem and the means of addressing it in a way that they will understand and accept in big enough numbers for democratic decisions to be made.

 

28 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Anybody born in the seventies onwards would have grown up knowing the potential effects of climate change.We've heard nothing else.You would think that successive governments haven’t lifted a finger when that’s simply not true.

 

In my life time there have been major changes to how we as a country treat the environment.From recycling to smoke free zones.Unleaded petrol to major domestic insulation programmes.The list goes on.Ive seen the ozone layer get broken and then fixed.Leicester was Britain’s 1st environmental city.We are world leaders in the advancement of renewable energy.

 

I do remember however as a young teen in the late 80s,the predictions made about what would happen by 2020 if we didn’t  change our ways.Norfolk and the fens would be gone for starters.The Sahara desert would have spread into Southern Europe.Average winter temperatures were due to be 13c in England and the thermometer would regularly hit the 40s in summer.All the south sea islands gone along with 95% of the rainforests.We have gone past ten year points of no return again and again.So for me the threat of a Third World War is the biggest danger.That is never more than a couple of weeks away.Just like it used to be before climate change took over.

 

There have been numerous improvements, yes - some excellent jumps forward and we continue to do so. However, as the most recent IPCC report states, it's not enough, and not fast enough.

 

WRT the predictions, at the end of the Boy Who Cried Wolf the wolf does come and the village loses its flock because they didn't listen only once and the boy was right only once - that's all it'll take, as onerous and fatalistic as some of these predictions are.

 

The major powers all deciding to empty their silos and subs is probably the only event that could compare to climate change in terms of its long-term effects, so yeah, it needs to be kept an eye on too. TBH, you might even combine the two, for instance: increasing temperatures causes key resource shortage (crop, potable water etc), small countries start fighting to control it, big countries end up getting drawn in...and mankinds own nature finishes what nature started.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

I find the assertion that the outcome of an natural event that, unless addressed, is going to happen no matter how the news is delivered is somehow the responsibility of those delivering that news as illogical as you find my stance on this bizarre, tbh Kopf. As you're someone who I think normally deals in logic, I find that particular stance here odd too.

 

However, I guess that perception (particularly majority perception) does matter rather than what actually is true in a lot of cases as ego is a thing and so if a lot of people think that way (and it seems like they do) then my viewpoint on the matter is irrelevant - perhaps I don't understand the psychology of people to act irrationally enough. And at the end of the day, what matters is what needs to get done, gets done - never mind how - so I can see what you're saying about the way the message is delivered.

 

WRT the message itself, if you want me to disseminate those infographics I posted above I can do so. The scientific talking heads have been telling folks what is going on, and what needs to be done, for years, if not decades. Evidently, however, there's a disconnect with scientific communication to the general public - a pretty common problem, sadly - which means that people just seem to be seeing the end of the world rather than the solutions crafted to avoid it. (Pardon me for floating a conspiracy here, however, but I think quite a bit of that bad communication is being crafted deliberately through misinformation by certain vested interests who want things to stay as they are because they care nothing for the future - what better way to discredit a prediction than to over-exaggerate it like this?)

 

Honestly, I'm not sure what more can be done to make folks aware of the problem and the means of addressing it in a way that they will understand and accept in big enough numbers for democratic decisions to be made.

 

No obviously the responsibility for the event doesn't lie with the messengers cos that would be an absolutely mental thing to say. I guess I see how it could have been read that way (?):dunno:But it is their fault if the message gets lost somewhat. People tend to end up resenting things and it doesn't take a PR professional to think that an actress flying in first class to disrupt the bus journeys of thousands isn't the best way to fight an environmental campaign. Nor is being a terribly uncharismatic 21yo with a 'posh' name making silly demands and storming off interviews for that matter. A stupid ally is often a bigger threat than a brilliant adversary which is why I'd run a mile from the ER lot. Again ER with their catastrophism and talking about zero emissions by 2025 is not helpful. It just inspires fatalism as people think 2025 is unachievable. Run a mile from it.

 

I just think the message needs to be more positive, made by people showing themselves doing positive things. But things like to 2040 movie with its uplifting positivity is far better than an actress flying in to peddle catastrophism and stopping people using buses to. We're all hypocrites because the system is set up to make us hypocrites, it's unavoidable so if Emma Thompson showed herself taking part in carbon offsetting programmes it'd be better. I get the clamour for 'radicalism' when you feel nobody is listening, there's not enough column inches and you're exasperated but I think it harms this cause because appearances matter and catastrophism (works better on the young) overwhelms and leads to fatalism

 

Anyway it's all a bit moot cos the biggest problem and obstacle is whom occupies the White House atm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

No obviously the responsibility for the event doesn't lie with the messengers cos that would be an absolutely mental thing to say. I guess I see how it could have been read that way (?):dunno:But it is their fault if the message gets lost somewhat. People tend to end up resenting things and it doesn't take a PR professional to think that an actress flying in first class to disrupt the bus journeys of thousands isn't the best way to fight an environmental campaign. Nor is being a terribly uncharismatic 21yo with a 'posh' name making silly demands and storming off interviews for that matter. A stupid ally is often a bigger threat than a brilliant adversary which is why I'd run a mile from the ER lot. Again ER with their catastrophism and talking about zero emissions by 2025 is not helpful. It just inspires fatalism as people think 2025 is unachievable. Run a mile from it.

 

I just think the message needs to be more positive, made by people showing themselves doing positive things. But things like to 2040 movie with its uplifting positivity is far better than an actress flying in to peddle catastrophism and stopping people using buses to. We're all hypocrites because the system is set up to make us hypocrites, it's unavoidable so if Emma Thompson showed herself taking part in carbon offsetting programmes it'd be better. I get the clamour for 'radicalism' when you feel nobody is listening, there's not enough column inches and you're exasperated but I think it harms this cause because appearances matter and catastrophism (works better on the young) overwhelms and leads to fatalism

 

Anyway it's all a bit moot cos the biggest problem and obstacle is whom occupies the White House atm. 

Thank you for the clarification - I was sure you wouldn't imply something like that so I thought it quite odd. I maintain if people put on their logic heads for just a moment they wouldn't go in for resentment of the type you're suggesting here, but the evidence clearly suggests that people don't and do do these things, so I guess it's moot. I'm asking too much of humanity in general, clearly.

 

Some positive output would be good (that Attenborough documentary on Thursday did that well from the point of view of presenting the facts and what we can do about it) and I like to think more stuff like that is being produced (like that infographic above). It just needs to reach the population in a way that can be disseminated. (Again, perhaps there's something getting in the way of this for its own purposes?)

 

No surprise that I absolutely, unequivocally agree with the last sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Emma is getting a bit of a raw deal here. Sure she leads a key set lifestyle etc etc. But what extinction rebellion are looking to do is get governments to take action. 

 

The more high profile people who attach their name to this the better. 

 

It's not about whether someone has flown quite a bit it's about governments taking real action and changing the way we all do things and that can only happen from the very top.

 

They make the laws and decide the future for all of us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
1 hour ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

I think Emma is getting a bit of a raw deal here. Sure she leads a key set lifestyle etc etc. But what extinction rebellion are looking to do is get governments to take action. 

 

The more high profile people who attach their name to this the better. 

 

It's not about whether someone has flown quite a bit it's about governments taking real action and changing the way we all do things and that can only happen from the very top.

 

They make the laws and decide the future for all of us.

I doing the same. 

 

Booked four flights today, not my fault it's dat government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the current green movement sees the solution to climate change in reducing consumption.

 

Suggested personal changes always involve doing less of something - eating less meat, driving and flying less, consuming less electricity. At the macro-level, you'll hear individuals like George Monbiot, Naomi Klein and various Green Parties use terms like "de-growth" and "de-industrialisation." Again, the intention is to lower carbon emissions by radically reducing human consumption.

 

This simply won't work in my view. For it to be effective would require those of us in rich countries to accept a significant reduction in our standard of living, which I think very few of us would be. Of course, policy programmes like 'de-growth' or capped-growth are going to be even less popular elsewhere in the world.

 

The way to solve the climate change crisis, I think, is to find ways of reducing carbon emissions while increasing, or at least maintaining, our standard of living. Technological breakthroughs such as artificial meat, self-driving cars, carbon capture storage and nuclear fusion should be drawing our attention. The path towards lower emissions must remember the value of human prosperity to be successful.

Edited by Harry - LCFC
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Harry - LCFC said:

It seems to me that the current green movement sees the solution to climate change in reducing consumption.

 

Suggested personal changes always involve doing less of something - eating less meat, driving and flying less, consuming less electricity. At the macro-level, you'll hear individuals like George Monbiot, Naomi Klein and various Green Parties use terms like "de-growth" and "de-industrialisation." Again, the intention is to lower carbon emission by radically reducing human consumption.

 

This simply won't work in my view. For this to have be effective would require those of us in rich countries to accept a significant reduction in our standard of living, which I think very of us would be. Of course, policy programmes like 'de-growth' or capped-growth are going to be even less popular elsewhere in the world.

 

The way to solve the climate change crisis, I think, is to find ways of reducing carbon emissions while increasing, or at least maintaining, our standard of living. Technological breakthroughs such as artificial meat, self-driving cars, carbon capture storage and nuclear fusion should be drawing our attention. The path towards lower emissions must remember the value of human prosperity to be successful.

I totally agree and I wish people would push the idea of innovation to maintain our standard of living and technology while reducing emissions at the same time - it's annoying that neo-Luddism seems to be the big voice of the green movement right now.

 

Not because it's not a noble aim, but because I believe it to be unrealistic in terms of actually getting it done for the reasons you say and as such it gets in the way of actually solving the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to say that as admirable as their intentions are, I do think this lot are barking up the wrong tree staging all these protests in London: As nations go we must surely be among the most proactive on this topic so if the point of protests is to enforce changes in policy that benefit the environment then the law of diminishing returns suggests they're better off focusing their efforts on countries where more profound mitigation of humanity's effects on the environment is achievable. China, India, the USA for instance.  After all, on this very day we've just broken our record for hours passed without generating power using fossil fuels (89 iirc) as we continue the push towards removing them as an energy source altogether.  The point is we're already trying hard to cut back on our environmental impact, even if we could stand to do more on that front we certainly won't save the planet by targeting the low-hanging fruit that is those already working on a solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Have to say that as admirable as their intentions are, I do think this lot are barking up the wrong tree staging all these protests in London: As nations go we must surely be among the most proactive on this topic so if the point of protests is to enforce changes in policy that benefit the environment then the law of diminishing returns suggests they're better off focusing their efforts on countries where more profound mitigation of humanity's effects on the environment is achievable. China, India, the USA for instance.  After all, on this very day we've just broken our record for hours passed without generating power using fossil fuels (89 iirc) as we continue the push towards removing them as an energy source altogether.  The point is we're already trying hard to cut back on our environmental impact, even if we could stand to do more on that front we certainly won't save the planet by targeting the low-hanging fruit that is those already working on a solution.

I see your point, though I would hope what is going on now does have more of a worldwide focus than just the UK - because as you say, it is very much needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48017275

 

"I can't really say anything to [Trump] that he hasn't heard before.

"Obviously he's not listening to the science and to what we have to say so I wouldn't be able to change his mind."

 

Damned by a 16-year old girl who has more awareness about the future in her little fingernail than the leader of the "free world" has in his entire body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/04/2019 at 12:32, Kopfkino said:

 

No obviously the responsibility for the event doesn't lie with the messengers cos that would be an absolutely mental thing to say. I guess I see how it could have been read that way (?):dunno:But it is their fault if the message gets lost somewhat. People tend to end up resenting things and it doesn't take a PR professional to think that an actress flying in first class to disrupt the bus journeys of thousands isn't the best way to fight an environmental campaign. Nor is being a terribly uncharismatic 21yo with a 'posh' name making silly demands and storming off interviews for that matter. A stupid ally is often a bigger threat than a brilliant adversary which is why I'd run a mile from the ER lot. Again ER with their catastrophism and talking about zero emissions by 2025 is not helpful. It just inspires fatalism as people think 2025 is unachievable. Run a mile from it.

 

I just think the message needs to be more positive, made by people showing themselves doing positive things. But things like to 2040 movie with its uplifting positivity is far better than an actress flying in to peddle catastrophism and stopping people using buses to. We're all hypocrites because the system is set up to make us hypocrites, it's unavoidable so if Emma Thompson showed herself taking part in carbon offsetting programmes it'd be better. I get the clamour for 'radicalism' when you feel nobody is listening, there's not enough column inches and you're exasperated but I think it harms this cause because appearances matter and catastrophism (works better on the young) overwhelms and leads to fatalism

 

Anyway it's all a bit moot cos the biggest problem and obstacle is whom occupies the White House atm. 

Thousands if not millions of people up and down the country are doing positive things everyday to combat climate change. That doesn’t grab the attention and it is not enough as individuals and businesses can only operate in the framework set out by the government. Some businesses have spent millions on reducing their plastic packaging (Guinness for example) they can do that because their brand is so strong. Other companies can’t or won’t unless forced to by regulations. Other companies are taking a hit eg Boston Tea Party, refusing to use single use cups and Sales have fallen by £250,000 a noble gesture that could put them out of business.

 

Extinction Rebellion and their new poster girl Emma Thompson May be pissing people off but they are getting some headlines. If Emma Thompson now says she carbon offset her flight to take part and has done on every flight for the last 10 years it is a much bigger story than it was.

 

Tackling climate change needs to come from the top and not enough is being done to make it viable for individuals and businesses to do what they need to do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they wanted to try and urge others to join them in trying to tell the government that climate change needs to be addressed properly and very seriously - why couldn't they have simply just created some form of online campaign/petition about it; instead of just, it does seem now, embarrassing themselves and the nation by playing 'dead' etc in public spaces?..

 

If anything, they're really actually now digging a big hole for themselves furthermore and should think what they are doing (without wasting valuable police time and resources in dealing with their 'demonstrations'..).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wymeswold fox said:

If they wanted to try and urge others to join them in trying to tell the government that climate change needs to be addressed properly and very seriously - why couldn't they have simply just created some form of online campaign/petition about it; instead of just, it does seem now, embarrassing themselves and the nation by playing 'dead' etc in public spaces?..

 

If anything, they're really actually now digging a big hole for themselves furthermore and should think what they are doing (without wasting valuable police time and resources in dealing with their 'demonstrations'..).

 

 

I think the point is that has already been tried, and judging by the fact that though the UK is doing much it's not enough...it's been deemed ineffective, hence the movement to more ridiculous stunts like this.

 

Of course, this is all rubbish that is hardly going to work either and they really shouldn't have done it, but it's reasonably clear that asking in a nice and rational manner and attempting to convince folks of the nature of what's going on either is being ignored or is happening much too slowly to be helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I think the point is that has already been tried, and judging by the fact that though the UK is doing much it's not enough...it's been deemed ineffective, hence the movement to more ridiculous stunts like this.

 

Of course, this is all rubbish that is hardly going to work either and they really shouldn't have done it, but it's reasonably clear that asking in a nice and rational manner and attempting to convince folks of the nature of what's going on either is being ignored or is happening much too slowly to be helpful.

Respectfully, I disagree. My views have definitely been more swayed by the discussions had on here than any wild hippie lying around my local supermarket would ever accomplish.

 

It's really hard to see how anyone not already seriously invested in the topic could possibly take these people (and therefore their "cause") seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Respectfully, I disagree. My views have definitely been more swayed by the discussions had on here than any wild hippie lying around my local supermarket would ever accomplish.

 

It's really hard to see how anyone not already seriously invested in the topic could possibly take these people (and therefore their "cause") seriously.

That's fair enough and I really wish there were more people like you that were swayed by such arguments - enough to make a meaningful difference. It would make the efforts so much easier.

 

However, given current evidence, either there aren't enough being swayed in such fashion or something else is interfering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Respectfully, I disagree. My views have definitely been more swayed by the discussions had on here than any wild hippie lying around my local supermarket would ever accomplish.

 

It's really hard to see how anyone not already seriously invested in the topic could possibly take these people (and therefore their "cause") seriously.

 

 

Which is precisely why their protest has been effective - it has got people talking about it in a way that petitions etc didn't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
15 minutes ago, Buce said:

Which is precisely why their protest has been effective - it has got people talking about it in a way that petitions etc didn't.

But it got most people talking about what arseholes they are - bit like an EDL march used to.

 

The whole thing is becoming a bit weird now, it's like a religion for atheists. 

 

If I walked into a shop and saw that I'd buy as much meat as possible on principle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

But it got most people talking about what arseholes they are - bit like an EDL march used to.

 

The whole thing is becoming a bit weird now, it's like a religion for atheists. 

 

If I walked into a shop and saw that I'd buy as much meat as possible on principle. 

 

No offence, but it's not aimed at people like you, who are aware but don't really care.

 

It's about bringing the crisis to the attention of the wider public - who, as we saw with Brexit, are largely uninformed about current affairs - and get people talking about it, and that has been successful.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Many people say that we don’t have any solutions to the climate crisis. And they are right. Because how could we? How do you “solve” the greatest crisis that humanity has ever faced? How do you “solve” a war? How do you “solve” going to the moon for the first time? How do you “solve” inventing new inventions?
The climate crisis is both the easiest and the hardest issue we have ever faced. The easiest because we know what we must do. We must stop the emissions of greenhouse gases. The hardest because our current economics are still totally dependent on burning fossil fuels, and thereby destroying ecosystems in order to create everlasting economic growth.
“So, exactly how do we solve that?” you ask us – the schoolchildren striking for the climate.

And we say: “No one knows for sure. But we have to stop burning fossil fuels and restore nature and many other things that we may not have quite figured out yet.”
Then you say: “That’s not an answer!”
So we say: “We have to start treating the crisis
 like a crisis – and act even if we don’t have all the solutions.”
“That’s still not an answer,” you say.
Then we start talking about circular economy and rewilding nature and the need for a just transition. Then you don’t understand what we are talking about.
We say that all those solutions needed are not known to anyone and therefore we must unite behind the science and find them together along the way. But you do not listen to that. Because those answers are for solving a crisis that most of you don’t even fully understand. Or don’t want to understand.
You don’t listen to 
the science
because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. Like now. And those answers don’t exist any more. Because you did not act in time.
Avoiding climate breakdown will require cathedral thinking. We must lay the foundation while we may not know exactly how to build the ceiling.
Sometimes we just simply have to find a way."

 

- Greta Thunberg, speaking to the British Parliament.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion we will not be successful in addressing climate change unless we address the all the causes of climate change as an essential part of the solution.  This planet has an ever-increasing population which places its demands upon all resources, including food and energy.  Our solutions to those demands are contributors to climate change.  If we want a sustainable planet without the imminent threat of irreversible climate change I believe that we must drastically reduce the world's population, not by war or euthanasia but by strictly limiting birth rates.  This will require international co-operation not seen to date and will jeopardise economies which are structured to thrive in increasing markets.  This will be highly unpalatable but we are living with a gun to our head, and unless we realise this the necessary action is unlikely to be forthcoming.  The target is a much smaller population which uses the planets resources in a sustainable manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...