Positive changes: What kind of lifestyle changes are or might you be making going forward to help the planet?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just a quick reminder about the ban on political discussion. It's a tough boundary to define in terms of climate change as it's so often intertwined with economics/politics. However, if your post is all politics and no climate, there's a fair chance the line has been crossed!

[Snipper]

6 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Just a quick reminder about the ban on political discussion. It's a tough boundary to define in terms of climate change as it's so often intertwined with economics/politics. However, if your post is all politics and no climate, there's a fair chance the line has been crossed!

To be honest it is a difficult one to call. If Mr Finger is being pointed at me it was an economic augment that applies to everyone where ever they are. 

[Sky Full]

Here, in my opinion, is the main problem with trying to get people to change their lifestyles to limit climate change:  the people who might be able to make the changes needed to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide are not the people who will see the effects of climate change - good or bad.  Those who have the power now to change laws, change industry and change national energy policies are already (mostly) too old to live long enough to see if those changes work.  If an individual is unable to see a direct threat to their own life or future (or possibly to their immediate family) there is little chance that they will be willing to make substantial changes to their lifestyle for the benefit of a future generation.  I suggest that there is no incentive for them to act because it won't affect their own lives.  Only those who are currently very young, or the yet unborn, will be alive long enough to see how the world copes with increases in global temperatures in 50 or 100 years.  By the time these people are old enough to be in positions of power and able to take truly effective action, it may well be too late to reverse the changes.  

In summary:  apart from tinkering around the edges, the world's 'great and good' will by and large continue to do little about the rate at which carbon dioxide is being emitted world-wide and only future generations will get to see the results.  In the meantime the rest of us can only look on and try to make a difference no matter how small.

[Roy1]

Is likely to at all plausible?

https://apple.news/Aan1aaNVzOPKbgr4S2VYF7Q

[Gray-Wolf]

On 17/11/2019 at 09:02, Sky Full said:

Here, in my opinion, is the main problem with trying to get people to change their lifestyles to limit climate change:  the people who might be able to make the changes needed to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide are not the people who will see the effects of climate change - good or bad.  Those who have the power now to change laws, change industry and change national energy policies are already (mostly) too old to live long enough to see if those changes work.  If an individual is unable to see a direct threat to their own life or future (or possibly to their immediate family) there is little chance that they will be willing to make substantial changes to their lifestyle for the benefit of a future generation.  I suggest that there is no incentive for them to act because it won't affect their own lives.  Only those who are currently very young, or the yet unborn, will be alive long enough to see how the world copes with increases in global temperatures in 50 or 100 years.  By the time these people are old enough to be in positions of power and able to take truly effective action, it may well be too late to reverse the changes.  

In summary:  apart from tinkering around the edges, the world's 'great and good' will by and large continue to do little about the rate at which carbon dioxide is being emitted world-wide and only future generations will get to see the results.  In the meantime the rest of us can only look on and try to make a difference no matter how small.

Have to agree with this!

It's as if 'They' think they can get through our coming 'trials & tribulations' unscathed?

I do not share either their 'confidence' or 'Morality'

I thought the pennies were put on your eyes 'after' you died not throughout your life?

But ,sadly, unless we rise (like lions from slumber in unvanquishable number!) they will leave us to our fate as they scrabble for their Compounds/Bunkers/Safe Nations.....

Will you be complicit in your own early demise or will you make a stand?

Soon be December 12th......

[Snipper]

China coal surge threatens Paris climate targets

WWW.BBC.COM

---

China is adding coal power equivalent to the EU's entire generating capacity.

I better go and plant a few more trees to compensate. 

[Roy1]

11 hours ago, Snipper said:

China coal surge threatens Paris climate targets

WWW.BBC.COM

---

China is adding coal power equivalent to the EU's entire generating capacity.

I better go and plant a few more trees to compensate. 

Hope you have big garden to plant all the trees needed. 

[Sky Full]

13 hours ago, Snipper said:

China coal surge threatens Paris climate targets

WWW.BBC.COM

---

China is adding coal power equivalent to the EU's entire generating capacity.

I better go and plant a few more trees to compensate. 

China is indeed a huge consumer of coal:   

China produces and consumes almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

WWW.EIA.GOV

Here is another moral issue which is difficult to resolve:  is it hypocritical to criticise any other country for using coal to power its growth after Europe and the USA did the same in the 19th and 20th centuries, during part of which period China was exploited ruthlessly which arguably contributed to the rise of communism?   Whatever the western nations can do to reduce CO2 output from their comfortable position of advanced development, the rest of the world is playing industrial catch-up and their growth will cancel out all efforts we make to cut back.....   Only if the world's scientists can crack the secret of safe, affordable, low emission power generation (e.g. atomic fusion power) can we truly expect to reverse the output of CO2 over the next 50 years.  So perhaps all the world's leaders could sit down and agree to stop spending money on nuclear weapons and space exploration and instead concentrate the world's research investment on finding a new ultra low emission power source.

In the meantime, it's worth noting that China is not using her coal in an irresponsible way and she is doing her best to minimise pollution and CO2 emissions....

Everything You Think You Know About Coal in China Is Wrong - Center for American Progress

WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG

---

China’s new coal-fired power plants are cleaner than ours—and stronger on climate change.

 

[Roy1]

Is not true that many regret the industrial revolution and want the clock turned back. Industrialisation and globalisation has produced a lot of wealth. This has encouraged population growth with the added burdens this causes. Production and consumption cannot always be up each year. So if wealth was not there it would not possible for the great, good and possibly the well meaning to dip into.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. 
 

 

[Sky Full]

I for one do not regret the industrial revolution - I value and enjoy the comforts and benefits of modern technology as much as the next person and in fairness the Victorians didn't really know what problems they were unleashing on future generations, did they?  What I do regret is that the human race is blighted by a general tendency towards selfishness and greed.  The powerful have nearly always exploited the weak in almost every nation and every society in every period of human history, from the day that we discovered how to make weapons.  There are always exceptions to this of course but nearly all successful societies in human history relied on exploitation and suppression of the vast majority by the tiny minority.  To this day the people who make decisions about the future of the planet are mostly acting in their own short term best interests and not for the long term benefit of the majority.  You know who I'm talking about.....   

250 years of industrial and scientific progress will be a tiny drop in the ocean of the Earths history compared to the possible tens of thousands of years it might take for the Earth to recover from the damage we are doing and it matters little how much of the worlds financial wealth filters down to the poorest alive today if human life on Earth becomes impossible in another 250 years.

[ciel]

6 hours ago, Roy1 said:

Is not true that many regret the industrial revolution and want the clock turned back. Industrialisation and globalisation has produced a lot of wealth. This has encouraged population growth with the added burdens this causes. Production and consumption cannot always be up each year. So if wealth was not there it would not possible for the great, good and possibly the well meaning to dip into.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. 
 

 

My understanding is that the effect of increased education, wealth and productivity results in a decrease in the rate of population growth.

Edited November 21, 2019 by ciel

[Snipper]

What’s wrong with planting new forests?

WWW.BBC.COM

---

Planting trees can sometimes actually do more harm than good to the environment. Here's why.

 

[weirpig]

carnage at the lib dems  gathering today   extension rebellion dressed as bees  have glued themselves to the campaign bus      Yep 

[Gray-Wolf]

Encouraging to see such folk taking these actions!

Exxon’s law firm tried to recruit Harvard students. Instead, they protested. | Grist

GRIST.ORG

---

Students told corporate firm Paul, Weiss that they refuse to work for a firm that helps corporate polluters block climate action.