The environment- preserving the worlds wonders.

[Pliskin]

It’s the ever growing elephant in the room. 
 

You can’t type an syllable into google search with out it throwing up a variant of “how can Impact the environment”.

 

Question is what do we do? what are we doing to help? are we that bad as a country? Considering we’re ranked 4th with an EPI score of 81.3, which is actually quite impressive considering our dense populations and our hustling cities, we share a top 10 seat with the likes of Denmark, Switzerland, France and Austria. Considering some of these countries can boast immense landscapes such as the alps and other large wide open landscapes this would suggest we’re doing alright?
 

It is quite clear it is the most important factor to address going forward, have we done too much? Is the future already bleak for us, what will the next 20-30 years hold? Should be use the covid pandemic as a chance to rethink how we work? And how to we preserve our wild spaces? 
 

I hope we can have a positive discussion, what are the little changes we can make to hopefully make a massive difference. 

[leicsmac]

As an individual nation, we can't do that much. That's one thing that a lot of folks seem to get - this is a problem that transcends national boundaries and while the UK's score is good, that's not going to matter depending on what other nations do - climate change nor pollution are going to stop at the border to get its passport checked.

 

It's certainly not too late to sort this all out, but the clock is ticking and there has to be more international co-operation on this matter.

Edited 7 February 2021 by leicsmac

[Benguin]

My personal approach is to:

 

- reduce or offset my carbon footprint where possible.

- invest in green companies and projects.

- Trust in the lord, this earth will pass away and he will make all things new. 
 

I think the militant approach is more harmful. The puppeteers behind Thunberg have created it into a bit of a meme rather than serious. 

[Pliskin]

3 minutes ago, Benguin said:

 

I think the militant approach is more harmful. The puppeteers behind Thunberg have created it into a bit of a meme rather than serious. 

This I absolutely agree with. An extreme approach to anything is wrong, dictatorships start like this and it’s never a way to impose an idea or a communal change because there will always be resistance. So I absolute agree with you there, people like Thunberg and the rest of the extinction rebellion don’t achieve anything by causing a scene in London. 
 

Like @leicsmac said, there’s not a huge amount we can do as a nation, we’ve already reduced a lot of what we do, and there’s more to come with the pending banning of diesel and petrol cars. Universally we need to establish what things cause most harm, and which one of these things we can actively change.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

My personal approach is to:

 

- reduce or offset my carbon footprint where possible.

- invest in green companies and projects.

- Trust in the lord, this earth will pass away and he will make all things new. 
 

I think the militant approach is more harmful. The puppeteers behind Thunberg have created it into a bit of a meme rather than serious. 

If that is true (and it might be), then it still changes nothing about the facts of the matter.

 

Rising global temperatures and their consequences don't actually care about what people think of the people delivering the message - they'll happen anyway.

[Benguin]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If that is true (and it might be), then it still changes nothing about the facts of the matter.

 

Rising global temperatures and their consequences don't actually care about what people think of the people delivering the message - they'll happen anyway.

Oh yeah I wasn’t suggesting they did. Rather an observation on how people react to this. Hence why I think a less militant stance is probably a better thing in terms of getting buy in from people. 

[Kopfkino]

What the EPI does highlight is that we’re not very good on measures relating to ecosystems. 

We’ve battered our countryside and pushed it to a minimum viable ecological position and  it doesn’t get anything like the specific attention it needs

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Oh yeah I wasn’t suggesting they did. Rather an observation on how people react to this. Hence why I think a less militant stance is probably a better thing in terms of getting buy in from people. 

I certainly agree that you can't browbeat people into getting consent from them on something like this and it's much better to use carrot than stick, but it's still their responsibility for what results occur if they choose not to buy in because that refusal is the critical factor dictating if things get done or not.

[Nalis]

Start with producing less consumers of the planet, ie, humans. 

 

In this day and age no one needs more than 2 kids.

[Stadt]

Rewilding is important, most of our ‘natural’ landscapes are anything but. Most environmental campaigners are reactionaries too so they hold progress back. The UK lacks rail capacity so delaying HS2 prolongs greater car dependency and is obviously worse for the environment.

 

We need more walkable cities (Leeds is the biggest city in Europe not have a mass transit system), better public transport (trains, busses & trams) and fewer cars generally.

 

Hopefully, our success in the vaccine rollout and the overtures made to levelling up mean that the UK embraces the idea of state capacity more firmly after decades neoliberalism.

 

In the medium term nuclear energy is the answer.

 

 

Edited 7 February 2021 by Stadt

[Stadt]

38 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Start with producing less consumers of the planet, ie, humans. 

 

In this day and age no one needs more than 2 kids.

The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 so that’s not true  

[Benguin]

43 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Start with producing less consumers of the planet, ie, humans. 

 

In this day and age no one needs more than 2 kids.

The only way to achieve that is by mandatory abortions. (People are never going to stop canoodling) Abortions are given out way too liberally as it is for me, so that’s never getting my vote. 

[Spudulike]

I planted two new trees in my garden last autumn. Only a token effort but made me feel good. 

[worth_the_wait]

I just try and do a few little things that seem sensible (not going to change the world by itself, but if everyone did it, it might make a difference)

 

I try not to waste water (a valuable resource).
I try and to not use any unnecessary electricity and gas (electricity not yet being a fully renewable resource).
I don't drop litter (makes the place look a mess, and can be harmful to animals).
I try and recycle as much as possible. (sometimes to a ridiculous level, but it's the principle!)
I try and buy British food in the shops where appropriate (reduce unnecessary imports, fuel usage etc)
I try and shop locally rather than use Amazon (better to support local facilities, rather than a tax-dodging multinational corporation).
I try never to waste food by throwing it out (mum taught me that was morally wrong, with so many hungry people in the world).
I drive carefully to avoid wasting fuel  (ok, that's me trying to save money, but it's not a bad thing to do anyway).
I rarely fly anywhere (as that only encourages everyone to put on even more cheap flights).

I haven't paved over my front or back garden (helps cause flash flooding by overloaded drains)

 

Hopefully, that doesn't sound too smug and pious.   It's just a few little things that we can all do.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

Start with producing less consumers of the planet, ie, humans. 

 

In this day and age no one needs more than 2 kids.

 

That's far too simplistic and a Western-centric approach.

 

Third World nations don't have a Welfare State to provide for old age, having kids does that - having plenty of kids insures against high mortality rates; Third World nations don't have access to contraception as easily as we do; Third World nations are often patriarchal societies that don't allow women choice over birth control.

[Jon the Hat]

On 07/02/2021 at 10:06, Nalis said:

Start with producing less consumers of the planet, ie, humans. 

 

In this day and age no one needs more than 2 kids.

Our UK average is 1.7, so sorted there.

[Dahnsouff]

Bin carbon offsetting, it is an abomination, or a stop gap for the those-that-haves at best.

Seriously, this pandemic could well gave been the moment to seize the chance to change, but we will just race back to the norm at the earliest opportunity and the big chance has been lost I fear

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Bin carbon offsetting, it is an abomination, or a stop gap for the those-that-haves at best.

Seriously, this pandemic could well gave been the moment to seize the chance to change, but we will just race back to the norm at the earliest opportunity and the big chance has been lost I fear

A lot of companies including mine are taking the opportunity to rethink their Travel and office footprint, and we expect the future to be around half the cost - so likely a headline reduction in travel carbon and office carbon, but probably some increase locally / at home.  A lot of the blocks to virtual working have proven to be less important that we thought.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

A lot of companies including mine are taking the opportunity to rethink their Travel and office footprint, and we expect the future to be around half the cost - so likely a headline reduction in travel carbon and office carbon, but probably some increase locally / at home.  A lot of the blocks to virtual working have proven to be less important that we thought.

It's a fair point, was perhaps hoping the Government would seek to drive the message home whilst we were in this moment of unavoidable reset. Whilst I agree the home working revolution (for those that can) has revealed itself not as difficult as many feared, the mindset remains and perhaps only time changes this.  

[Houdini Logic]

Before you start solving the problem you first need to agree on the cause. I've read so many conflicting reports that I really haven't got a clue

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

Before you start solving the problem you first need to agree on the cause. I've read so many conflicting reports that I really haven't got a clue

If you wouldn't mind explaining a bit about what you mean here, I'd be happy to clarify things for you.

[davieG]

I assume that for the majority working at home during the winter will mean using more energy, maybe if people are going to be permanently working from home grants to upgrade their heating systems to more efficient less carbon producing options.

[Houdini Logic]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If you wouldn't mind explaining a bit about what you mean here, I'd be happy to clarify things for you.

Well on one hand you have reports saying the issue is industry, fossil fuels and things like operational energy and then there are other reports which say it is animal agriculture. Surely, the cause (and it may well be a mixture) needs to be fully understood and a consensus reached before we can address how to fix the problem. 

 

So yeah, clarify please

[Greg2607]

I decided to go Vegan last year as a result of SOME of this.  Ultimately, there is a much lower Carbon footprint on not eating meat. 

 

As an extension of this, when last year there were masses of issues around food shortages and panic buying, I decided that I'm going to grow fruit and veg at home.  We are moving on the 19th Feb and I've got plans for a large veg garden in the new house. 

 

I would love to get Solar Panels, but the cost isn't offset by the energy you save (or at least, as far as I can tell) but instead i've decided to sign up to an electricity supplier that uses 100% renewable energy. 

 

All the lights in my house are LED, so much lower in terms of energy output. 

 

none of these things in itself, solve the problems on an individual basis, but billions of people changing to these behaviours, collectively would go a long way. 

 

the benefit of all of the above BTW, is that i'll save money as well!  It's a win win in my eyes. 

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

Well on one hand you have reports saying the issue is industry, fossil fuels and things like operational energy and then there are other reports which say it is animal agriculture. Surely, the cause (and it may well be a mixture) needs to be fully understood and a consensus reached before we can address how to fix the problem. 

 

So yeah, clarify please

Would be happy to!

 

From what I can tell from these two sources which are from the same website but use different primary sources:

 

https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions

 

https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector

 

Agriculture of all types seems to account for somewhere between one-quarter and one-fifth of all carbon emissions by source. This is dated for the last couple of years.

 

As you can see, animal and other agriculture has its place as a carbon emitter, but by far the bigger player is industry and in particular energy generation (which actually takes up over two-thirds of total emissions). That is the biggest elephant in the room, at industrial, residential and transportational levels, that needs to be addressed first. Of course, it's perfectly possible to have a try as addressing both at the same time.

 

I certainly agree that knowing the cause is most important before taking action, but I think the data is reasonably conclusive there from what I have seen and as such what is left is just the action required.

 

If you've got any further questions, I'd be happy to answer them.