Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

When it comes to climate change and the environment we're all mouth, no trousers



Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
A Dept for Energy and Climate Change study reveals that most people who profess to care about the planet don't actually do much to help save it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/gr...bout-climate-change-use-more-electricity.html

Very depressing reading and you can count me in amongst that lot. I recycle (usually) and got rid of the car but other than that I'm not particularly 'green'. I think you can also add Brighton and Hove's Green Council too, rather worryingly.
 

Papa Lazarou

Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
Jul 7, 2003
18,822
Worthing
We're sleep-walking towards (at best) a very uncertain future, at worst a very hostile planet.
 

algie

The moaning of life
Jan 8, 2006
14,713
In rehab
We're sleep-walking towards (at best) a very uncertain future, at worst a very hostile planet.
Not much you can do when America,China and India don't play ball.
 

virtual22

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2010
420
Not much you can do when America,China and India don't play ball.

We could at least set an example rather than opening ourselves up to every fracking company going, making it as easy as possible for them to drill and giving them incentives to do so. Our "leaders" choose to pick at Climate Change when it suits them (i.e. tax on flights/airports, petrol, etc.) and ignore it completely when it doesn't. The only thing that they care about is £££££.
 

Hotchilidog

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2009
8,624
This shows that people need to be educated better about what they do. No-one is perfect, my computer and tv are on sleep, think I may well change that in the light of this. Reducing energy consumption should be a key part of the climate change debate but seems to be slow down on the list.

If I were to widen out the debate I'd say that impact of livestock agriculture barely gets a mention in the climate change debate when it is one of the major contributors, far more damaging than air travel for instance.

Still think it's important to do whatever bit you can though.
 


Not much you can do when America,China and India don't play ball.

Is the correct answer.

It's like pissing in the English Channel trying to warm it up.

That's not to say we shouldn't at least try but there is Zero point unless the big polluters start to do something.
 

Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,523
Fiveways
A Dept for Energy and Climate Change study reveals that most people who profess to care about the planet don't actually do much to help save it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/gr...bout-climate-change-use-more-electricity.html

Very depressing reading and you can count me in amongst that lot. I recycle (usually) and got rid of the car but other than that I'm not particularly 'green'. I think you can also add Brighton and Hove's Green Council too, rather worryingly.

The big things you can do include one of the things you've done -- get rid of your car, or lower car use (I'm soon to go in the opposite direction: I've been without a car for eight years, but we need one for longer journeys, so will get one). The other key things are flying and emissions from the home.
Things like recycling and reducing plastic bag use are far more symbolic.
The key thing is that those who are more concerned about climate change are better educated, which more-often-than-not means more affluent, which means more expenditure and more emissions.
 

Guy Fawkes

The voice of treason
Sep 29, 2007
8,186
We could at least set an example rather than opening ourselves up to every fracking company going, making it as easy as possible for them to drill and giving them incentives to do so. Our "leaders" choose to pick at Climate Change when it suits them (i.e. tax on flights/airports, petrol, etc.) and ignore it completely when it doesn't. The only thing that they care about is £££££.

Our worldwide population keeps increasing and the demand for goods and energy will grow with it. Solar and other 'green' power sources may not be able to meet current or future energy useage so what happens when oil, gas and coal run out? - wars over the remaining scarce resources and so on? - thats why alternatives are being sort now (including the use of fracking) - How do you take away virtually all modern lifestyle choices because they are not preserving what natural and fossil resources we have left and a lot are really just an unnessessary extravagance (pets, tv, pc's, a lot of food packaging, etc......) there would be a mass outcry if this was restricted or banned and no Government would take that step and risk committing political suicide as we are all too attached to life's luxuries.

How far do you go? - should we stop providing famine relief and trying to stop conflict and wars because they offer population control? - do we stop trying to fight cancer and other potentially fatal diseases like aids/HIV because it again helps to thin out the population of the planet (and stops further generations in many cases and the future drain that will bring on natural resources)
 


dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
We do not have a significantly negative affect on the planet as a whole, if we ever did have, it would throw us off like a bad smell.

We should do more to protect the environment, and to make sure our impact is minimal.

When we tell everyone (incorrectly) that we are destroying the planet, we are all going to die etc, it actually demoralizes people and makes them less likely to act responsibly, because the problem is so big, what is the point?

Being overly dramatic & scary actually makes it less likely that people will take responsibility, if we were more honest and reasonable about the nature & scale of the problem, we'd probably do far better at finding solutions.
 

Czechmate

Well-known member
Oct 5, 2011
1,212
Brno Czech Republic
We do not have a significantly negative affect on the planet as a whole, if we ever did have, it would throw us off like a bad smell.

We should do more to protect the environment, and to make sure our impact is minimal.

When we tell everyone (incorrectly) that we are destroying the planet, we are all going to die etc, it actually demoralizes people and makes them less likely to act responsibly, because the problem is so big, what is the point?

Being overly dramatic & scary actually makes it less likely that people will take responsibility, if we were more honest and reasonable about the nature & scale of the problem, we'd probably do far better at finding solutions.

I agree with what you say , why do governments spend so much money on jobsworth researchers over the last god knows how many years and spend it on something more valuable , like new energy sources . The researchers have to come up with something news breaking else they wouldn't get any more grants . To be fair I am sure a one-way flight to Manchester will pollute the air more than my whole family in a lifetime , probably a lot more , to say we can help is just b----cks , the researchers/government need to say something .
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,716
Hove
Not much you can do when America,China and India don't play ball.
Is the correct answer.

It's like pissing in the English Channel trying to warm it up.

That's not to say we shouldn't at least try but there is Zero point unless the big polluters start to do something.

That's not strictly true. The US is slowly but surely addressing their emissions and levels of pollution. There is now a definite rhetoric, action, and results to suggest it is having a quantifiable impact. Data shows their emissions have been dropping since 2010 and continue to drop. If they seriously address the issue as being a morale force for change, then the world will follow. It's a big IF, but we have to hope they continue down that path.

http://architizer.com/blog/fresh-success-these-maps-show-that-americas-air-is-getting-cleaner/

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/212316-ambitious-us-emissions-pledge-can-lead-to-global
 

dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
I agree with what you say , why do governments spend so much money on jobsworth researchers over the last god knows how many years and spend it on something more valuable , like new energy sources . The researchers have to come up with something news breaking else they wouldn't get any more grants . To be fair I am sure a one-way flight to Manchester will pollute the air more than my whole family in a lifetime , probably a lot more , to say we can help is just b----cks , the researchers/government need to say something .

The problem is, as someone said earlier in this thread, "But China, & India!".

We frame the problem as a "global crisis" and so it becomes a TV News spectacle. Instead of thinking about how I can deal with my waste in a cleaner way, I am thinking about a population of 3 Billion who live half way around the world, and I want to ask some former lawyer in a suit what he intends to do about it.

We are a million miles from where we need to be on this one.
 


CheeseRolls

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jan 27, 2009
5,905
Shoreham Beach
Our worldwide population keeps increasing and the demand for goods and energy will grow with it. Solar and other 'green' power sources may not be able to meet current or future energy useage so what happens when oil, gas and coal run out? - wars over the remaining scarce resources and so on? - thats why alternatives are being sort now (including the use of fracking) - How do you take away virtually all modern lifestyle choices because they are not preserving what natural and fossil resources we have left and a lot are really just an unnessessary extravagance (pets, tv, pc's, a lot of food packaging, etc......) there would be a mass outcry if this was restricted or banned and no Government would take that step and risk committing political suicide as we are all too attached to life's luxuries.

How far do you go? - should we stop providing famine relief and trying to stop conflict and wars because they offer population control? - do we stop trying to fight cancer and other potentially fatal diseases like aids/HIV because it again helps to thin out the population of the planet (and stops further generations in many cases and the future drain that will bring on natural resources)

I have to say I disagree, with just about all of that. World population should peak around 2050 and is then predicted to decline. Many countries already have depopulation, due to falling birth rates. If you have any faith in the environmental impact of climate change, you should realise that we will likely reach a tipping point, long before we exhaust our reserves of fossil fuels. There is more than enough solar power alone to meet the needs of the planet. The challenge is in making it cost effective to store and distribute. This in itself is not insurmountable, dealing with climate change, which has tipped too far is less well understood.
 

virtual22

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2010
420
The thing is, we could do little things right now to help. Why not make every new house built today have compulsory Solar panels on the roof, or solar heating? I know some houses may not be facing the right direction, there is a property in Burgess Hill where this is the case so they have put them on the side of the house. The benefit of this is that it then brings new manufacturers to market as they know there is demand, this brings research and innovation, this brings costs down making it cheaper for older houses to have it installed and greater efficiency, this leads to more jobs, etc.

The actual overall cost of putting it on new houses, given how expensive new houses are now, isn't really going to make that much difference to the asking price and if it's done when the house is built it's reduced anyway.

Little things that take very little legislation but in time can make a huge difference just ignored.
 

n0-sIs

Banned
Jul 1, 2014
41
A Dept for Energy and Climate Change study reveals that most people who profess to care about the planet don't actually do much to help save it.

No sh1t sherlock works for the DfEaCC then? Most people do their color coded bins, claim they love the planet, but fund central banks and mega-corps - and can't even work out the links.

Saying that - climate change is all to do with the sun and 'electric universe' - not 4x4's or carbon dioxide......but the sheep will pay and listen while they consume and shop at all the wrong places.

easy tax for clever people.


sidenote: in the coming years northern europe will get much wetter, and southern europe much dryer (below madrid, rome, athens type gig). And the planet will cool leading towards a mini-ice age (in the next 50 years some time) in some parts of the earth.
 

Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jul 23, 2003
33,686
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
Didn't the Greens employ a Biosphere Consultant on 45k a year when they began minority rule in B&H? I can only imagine the actual carbon footprint generated by their laptop, webpage. employment contracts and regular salary payment was worse than any positive global climate impact.
 


dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
The thing is, we could do little things right now to help. Why not make every new house built today have compulsory Solar panels on the roof, or solar heating? I know some houses may not be facing the right direction, there is a property in Burgess Hill where this is the case so they have put them on the side of the house. The benefit of this is that it then brings new manufacturers to market as they know there is demand, this brings research and innovation, this brings costs down making it cheaper for older houses to have it installed and greater efficiency, this leads to more jobs, etc.

The actual overall cost of putting it on new houses, given how expensive new houses are now, isn't really going to make that much difference to the asking price and if it's done when the house is built it's reduced anyway.

Little things that take very little legislation but in time can make a huge difference just ignored.

If you were legislate, the government would end up subsidizing, and it would end up creating a government sponsored monopoly. There would be no research/innovation, things would not get cheaper, they would get more expensive. All the money used to do this would have been taken out of productive parts of the economy. We would end up worse off, with sh*t solar panels which don't work and are vastly over priced.

That's just how the government rolls.
 

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,237
If you were legislate, the government would end up subsidizing

we're subsidising green energy anyway. Feed in Tariffs, for those with enough money to pay for panels privately, are being paid through surcharges on our energy bills. government backed schemes for insulation are being paid for through surcharges on our energy bills. yet we blame energy companies for daring to make £50 per home per year profit.
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top
Link Here