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

[cheeky_monkey]

i bought myself  a bike last summer and now walk and bike at the weekends..but still drive to work and to meetings...always have taken showers instead of baths for the last 20 years..i don't recycle as there is no recycling policy in the city of Edmonton..they still haven't even started using wheelie bins for rubbish yet..only use my washing machine and dishwasher when they are full..will be flying home twice this year.

[Tinyspectacle1]

On 23/04/2019 at 20:27, Flash bang flash bang etc said:

I’ve been thinking about this and really want to try and achieve some goals this year, started by genuinely looking at train travel to Europe for holiday plans - still would love to travel (and doubt I could curb flying 100%) but to try and make a change.

Also working hard on some software projects to change the direction of my career. Lucky to have a good steady job at the moment but it involves a huge amount of driving in, out and around London - and feel ashamed of my carbon legacy to this point. Was thinking if I can work from home then the planet benefits as well 

Getting the train a lot more too - went to Somerset on the train over Easter and it wasn’t too much of a difference in price from driving (mind you it was only me)

Using the train sounds good. But if it is too much time-consuming you could also share your car with your colleagues to get to work. Less Co2 emissions and Money saving at the same time!  Also, electric cars are finally out now, I think it is a good purchase!  To make every day commuting easy and produce significantly low-levels of Co2. 

We could also think about plastic use; stop buying it and reuse the ones that are already with us.  

[Flash bang flash bang etc]

26 minutes ago, Tinyspectacle1 said:

Using the train sounds good. But if it is too much time-consuming you could also share your car with your colleagues to get to work. Less Co2 emissions and Money saving at the same time!  Also, electric cars are finally out now, I think it is a good purchase!  To make every day commuting easy and produce significantly low-levels of Co2. 

We could also think about plastic use; stop buying it and reuse the ones that are already with us.  

While I commend the points made - it’s a lot more complicated than ‘electric is good’ and ‘re-use is good’. Batteries come with their own manufacturing cost in terms of the chemicals produced and worldwide shipping, and I worry too that the supermarket ‘bag tax’ is just an excuse for them to make thicker and more hard wearing bags - which they now make money on - and which are potentially even worse for the environment if they end up in the ocean.

However, I am a huge cynic so I appreciate we need to start somewhere but I guess the question is have we left ourselves enough time to make a difference?  

[Jo Farrow]

I'm going to interview someone from XR Extinction Rebellion. I wondered if anyone had any questions they would like to ask this protest /climate action group ?

[Methuselah]

Maybe we could all follow Greta's example?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49156223

[DAVID SNOW]

57 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Maybe we could all follow Greta's example?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49156223

Maybe F1 motor racing will end its annual pollution even , wow! over the years its emissions must total   millions of tonnes or more . climate emergency...

[BornFromTheVoid]

9 hours ago, DAVID SNOW said:

Maybe F1 motor racing will end its annual pollution even , wow! over the years its emissions must total   millions of tonnes or more . climate emergency...

Well, the switch to hybrid engines a few years back was due to pressure from engine manufacturers to make the technology more relevant to general road cars, so it might be helping out with improving energy recovery systems, batteries, safety, etc.

The transport of teams and equipment from race to race is a much bigger emitter. But we're in a system that uses fossil fuels as it's foundations. It's near impossible to function within that system without somehow relying on fossil fuels too.

[Methuselah]

An interesting question being asked by this BBC article? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-49291464

If Greta goes by plane, she's a 'hypocrite', if she goes by boat, she's a 'virtue signaller'...? Then there are youngsters, in general: Do nothing, and they're 'snowflakes'...but, do something and they're labelled  'trouble makers'...

So, which is it guys (it's not easy to sit at both ends of a binary dichotomy)? Or, and I strongly suspect this to be the case, has a new meme of denialist nonsense been created...that of the Schrodinger's Activist?

[Derecho]

45 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

An interesting question being asked by this BBC article? 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-49291464

If Greta goes by plane, she's a 'hypocrite', if she goes by boat, she's a 'virtue signaller'...? Then there are youngsters, in general: Do nothing, and they're 'snowflakes'...but, do something and they're labelled  'trouble makers'...

So, which is it guys (it's not easy to sit at both ends of a binary dichotomy)? Or, and I strongly suspect this to be the case, has a new meme of denialist nonsense been created...that of the Schrodinger's Activist?

Seems to be some people out there who dislike young people no matter what they do and will even vote the opposite way to them out of spite, even if it defies logic.

The verbal attacks on Greta are really poor, stooping to her aspergers is just pathetic and it shows that she is winning the argument. Problem is those she is winning the argument against will refuse to change their ways and will stop any movement that encourages it. They are causing the most damage, not the 'trouble makers'.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Quicksilver1989

[cheeky_monkey]

On 02/09/2019 at 03:35, Quicksilver1989 said:

Seems to be some people out there who dislike young people no matter what they do and will even vote the opposite way to them out of spite, even if it defies logic.

The verbal attacks on Greta are really poor, stooping to her aspergers is just pathetic and it shows that she is winning the argument. Problem is those she is winning the argument against will refuse to change their ways and will stop any movement that encourages it. They are causing the most damage, not the 'trouble makers'.

im sure young Greta or should i say her parents are doing very nicely out of it all

[Derecho]

17 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

im sure young Greta or should i say her parents are doing very nicely out of it all

And I am sure the oil companies have been rolling in tonnes of money despite being fully aware of the warnings by climate scientists as far back as the late 1980s...

They are doing very nicely out of it all but lets overlook that eh? It's not as though they have been pedalling denialist tosh to get as much as they can out of destroying the environment and the planet is it?

Yet people feel compelled to attack Greta. Seems like you are suggesting she doesn't care and it's all a publicity stunt.

Which is ironic because her generation (and mine) will have to face worsening consequences of climate change...

But hey if she is getting attention from the governments she is aiming at... and on a critical issue it must just all be for publicity eh? Why don't we just stop and not question our governments on climate change? I'm sure that will encourage progress..

[Snipper]

Mrs Stone Age woman to Mr Stone Age man “you lighting that fire will be the death of us”.

[Methuselah]

36 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

And I am sure the oil companies have been rolling in tonnes of money despite being fully aware of the warnings by climate scientists as far back as the late 1980s...

They are doing very nicely out of it all but lets overlook that eh? It's not as though they have been pedalling denialist tosh to get as much as they can out of destroying the environment and the planet is it?

Yet people feel compelled to attack Greta. Seems like you are suggesting she doesn't care and it's all a publicity stunt.

Which is ironic because her generation (and mine) will have to face worsening consequences of climate change...

But hey if she is getting attention from the governments she is aiming at... and on a critical issue it must just all be for publicity eh? Why don't we just stop and not question our governments on climate change? I'm sure that will encourage progress..

Don't worry QS -- in another 30-years, most of us old farts'll be long-deid; and I just hope that, in the meantime, my generation doesn't entirely foook the planet...? 

Though, given the riches that the Big Oil routinely squirts over its paid-up deniers/stooges, I see little reason for optimism.

Go Greta. The Planet needs you!

[Derecho]

43 minutes ago, Snipper said:

Mrs Stone Age woman to Mr Stone Age man “you lighting that fire will be the death of us”.

Yes because I'm sure that's a good comparison to the threat of climate change...

[cheeky_monkey]

1 hour ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

 

Yet people feel compelled to attack Greta. Seems like you are suggesting she doesn't care and it's all a publicity stunt.

 

 

 

i am suggesting that people and organisations are using the poor girl as cynical way to drive their agenda whether its right or wrong..by using Greta you and others fall into the trap that any criticism of a 16 year old girl is not allowed because she is a child with Asperger and people who say the contrary are bad and woe betide anyone who says anything nasty/hurtful or disagree with her because you should hang your heads in shame...therefore no debate or contract-diction is allowed. i don't like it one bit

[Methuselah]

31 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

i am suggesting that people and organisations are using the poor girl as cynical way to drive their agenda whether its right or wrong..by using Greta you and others fall into the trap that any criticism of a 16 year old girl is not allowed because she is a child with Asperger and people who say the contrary are bad and woe betide anyone who says anything nasty/hurtful or disagree with her because you should hang your heads in shame...therefore no debate or contract-diction is allowed. i don't like it one bit

And I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury! 

[Derecho]

53 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

i am suggesting that people and organisations are using the poor girl as cynical way to drive their agenda whether its right or wrong..by using Greta you and others fall into the trap that any criticism of a 16 year old girl is not allowed because she is a child with Asperger and people who say the contrary are bad and woe betide anyone who says anything nasty/hurtful or disagree with her because you should hang your heads in shame...therefore no debate or contract-diction is allowed. i don't like it one bit

Good grief the irony of this first line is remarkable, the only people and organisations driving an agenda that is wrong are climate change deniers its as simple as that.

The reason why Greta is protesting about climate change is because she believes governments aren't doing enough, not because her parents forced her to.

The fact is that there have been many trolls have been targeting her appearance and aspergers because they can't win an argument about climate change.

Did you not read the article Ed linked?

Edited September 3, 2019 by Quicksilver1989

[Devonian]

10 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

i am suggesting that people and organisations are using the poor girl as cynical way to drive their agenda whether its right or wrong..by using Greta you and others fall into the trap that any criticism of a 16 year old girl is not allowed because she is a child with Asperger and people who say the contrary are bad and woe betide anyone who says anything nasty/hurtful or disagree with her because you should hang your heads in shame...therefore no debate or contract-diction is allowed. i don't like it one bit

And yet what do you have to say about what she says, her arguments? Nothing.

 

[weirpig]

In Regards to the great hope Greta.  Im sure her intensions   are honest. She believes in climate change and she is doing everything in her power to stop it however it would be very naive  to think that people are not making money off the back of her  such is the way of the world.  Her parents  ( an actor and Opera singer)  have made money off the back of her exploits  whether that be from  interest in their daughter  or the sale of her mothers book ( one that was released just after the first Friday school strike )  The PR company that first brought Greta on the scene have certainly made money  and the company as since become a multi million pound company.  Of course non of this diminishes the point she is trying to get across   Climate change is real  and we need to stop it.  My gripe however is the futility of it all.  She sailed across the Atlantic on a multi million pound boat which was ( as close as you can get to carbon neutral)  but why?.  what point was she trying to make?.  There is noway anyone of us reading  this thread could every afford to travel in  such way.  And if she was trying to highlight the fact that technology is  out there    and it is a possible way of travelling in the future  then time is one thing we dont have.  This is what gets me with Gretas campaign   its fantasy land  it will never be reached   we need to concentrate on something that we can all do to limit climate change  not sail around on a expensive boat.  The only real way of meeting Greta expectations  is by going back 100 years  and removing alll technology that we have amassed since    but that is something that will never happen 

[BornFromTheVoid]

I guess she could have remained quiet, get to have relatively peaceful teen years/early adulthood.
Barring that, she could sugar coat her message, so as not to irk the delicate folk who just can't handle the reality of climate change
She could have taken the easy path and flown to the US, certainly more comfortable than 2 weeks in a cramped racing yacht.

But she doesn't do those things. She chooses to speak up and make something of her adolescence. She rises above the torrents of abuse that pathetic climate deniers and right wing commentators hurl at her, and focuses only on her message. She sticks by her principles and refuses to fly, despite the difficulty and time consuming nature of transatlantic boat travel.

But I suppose this is simply par for the course for the climate denier community. It's the same style of attack aimed at anybody that speaks up about climate change. As this forum shows, it's still a highly effective tool. Anyone that becomes a prominent figure is attacked in every way they can be whether it's personal insults, conspiracy theories spread through the usual denier blogs or general condescending ridicule. They are the main avenues available for people that know they're in the wrong.

At all costs, her actual message must be avoided, lest her critics have to actually tackle some scientific realities

[Derecho]

50 minutes ago, weirpig said:

In Regards to the great hope Greta.  Im sure her intensions   are honest. She believes in climate change and she is doing everything in her power to stop it however it would be very naive  to think that people are not making money off the back of her  such is the way of the world.  Her parents  ( an actor and Opera singer)  have made money off the back of her exploits  whether that be from  interest in their daughter  or the sale of her mothers book ( one that was released just after the first Friday school strike )  The PR company that first brought Greta on the scene have certainly made money  and the company as since become a multi million pound company.  Of course non of this diminishes the point she is trying to get across   Climate change is real  and we need to stop it.  My gripe however is the futility of it all.  She sailed across the Atlantic on a multi million pound boat which was ( as close as you can get to carbon neutral)  but why?.  what point was she trying to make?.  There is noway anyone of us reading  this thread could every afford to travel in  such way.  And if she was trying to highlight the fact that technology is  out there    and it is a possible way of travelling in the future  then time is one thing we dont have.  This is what gets me with Gretas campaign   its fantasy land  it will never be reached   we need to concentrate on something that we can all do to limit climate change  not sail around on a expensive boat.  The only real way of meeting Greta expectations  is by going back 100 years  and removing alll technology that we have amassed since    but that is something that will never happen 

The misinterpretation a lot of people make is that they think she is taking a swipe at people in general, when the fact is she is aiming at governments. If she went across the Atlantic in a private jet, politicians and the Daily Mail would have a meltdown about it and she is aware about this. So that is why she travelled by boat. It makes politicans take her climate change message more seriously. I think BP listed her as the main threat to the oil industry (there was a news article about this and will try and find it), so you can't say it's futile.

Besides, what good is it to sit there and do nothing to press our governments? They were warned about it in the late 1980s and did little at all. It's only fair that such an issue should be scrutinised given the lack of progress. Doing all we can means sparking political movements into gear (as without a compliant government, progress cannot be made) so your statement sounds contradictory.

In the end, yes combating climate change is difficult but I don't see any evidence that it will set us back 100 years given the technologies we are developing today. It's not easy but our generation don't want to be remembered as the generation that did nothing and want to leave a better future for children if we can, its as simple as that.

Taking the approach above would do nothing to help things. Even if Greta's family benefited from the worldwide attention Greta has earned, this should in no way undermine her message.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Quicksilver1989

[weirpig]

2 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

The misinterpretation a lot of people make is that they think she is taking a swipe at people in general, when the fact is she is aiming at governments. If she went across the Atlantic in a private jet, politicians and the Daily Mail would have a meltdown about it and she is aware about this. So that is why she travelled by boat. It makes politicans take her climate change message more seriously. I think BP listed her as a primary threat to the oil industry (there was a news article about this and will try and find it), so you can't say it's futile.

Besides, what good is it to sit there and do nothing to press our governments? They were warned about it in the late 1980s and did little at all. It's only fair that such an issue should be scrutinised given the lack of progress. Doing all we can means sparking political movements into gear (as without a compliant government, progress cannot be made) so your statement sounds contradictory.

In the end, yes combating climate change is difficult but I don't see any evidence that it will set us back 100 years given the technologies we are developing today. It's not easy but our generation don't want to be remembered as the generation that did nothing and want to leave a better future for children if we can, its as simple as that.

Taking the approach above would do nothing to help things. Even if Greta's family benefited from the worldwide attention Greta has earned, this should in no way undermine her message.

She didnt travel by boat  she travelled by a few million pounds worth of boat  so yes it is futile.  no one can ever travel like that  i would rather she travel by plane like most folks and maybe offset her carbon footprint  ( most experts put the amount of emmisions by a aircraft at 2%  nowhere near the main issue of climate change) this would at least be a way that everyone could participate in   If she went around the world preaching a target that can be met she wouldnt be  met with so much dirision.   For Climate change to work  we all need to work together  setting unrealistic targets will not cut it  people will turn off    but yet what do i know.    

[Methuselah]

But a lot of options lie between the kind of measures which are deemed (by right-wing commentators, at least) 'unrealistic' -- though they might actually work -- and the type of easily-reachable targets that make no difference (other than PR-wise) to the problem whatsoever...? 

And many of those options would rely almost entirely on new technology: wind-/wave-power and thermovoltaics come to mind...

[weirpig]

23 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

But a lot of options lie between the kind of measures which are deemed (by right-wing commentators, at least) 'unrealistic' -- though they might actually work -- and the type of easily-reachable targets that make no difference (other than PR-wise) to the problem whatsoever...? 

And many of those options would rely almost entirely on new technology: wind-/wave-power and thermovoltaics come to mind...

Not at all Pete  Extension Rebillions  main goal is for the UK to be zero carbon  before 2025.  do you know what that would entail?.  Thats why people do not take Rebellion seriously   they are seen as a inconvenience.   once people start thinking that  then any hope of tackling the problem is finished   by the way in answer the question above   the ECI unit in the uk   as stated  that  to achieve that goal   Flying would need to be scraped  over 30 million cars would need to be removed  and   all gas boilers in the Uk would need to be removed   all in 6 years.   

Edited September 4, 2019 by weirpig

[Derecho]

34 minutes ago, weirpig said:

Not at all Pete  Extension Rebillions  main goal is for the UK to be zero carbon  before 2025.  do you know what that would entail?.  

I've said before that such a target is unfeasable but should that mean we just give up on developing renewable technologies and modes of transport that are better for the environment? The answer isn't easy but never underestimate human ingenuity. If you had told someone in 1800 that cars and planes would be developed by 1886 and 1903... and then become regular modes of transport, would they believe you?

The problem with the staunch right wing is that their aim is not to provide a critique, it's to stop any progress in its tracks. That is a key difference.

And the fact that Greta went across the Atlantic by yacht is irrelevant. It's sending a message to politicians that she stands by what she is saying. If she went by private jet that would undermine her message and the CO2 footprint would have been huge.

As I say, I don't want to be known as being part of a generation that sat there and did nothing whilst we were capable of developing much better technologies. The sad fact is, some people have somehow come to the conclusion that sitting there and doing nothing is the answer.... that plays right into the hands of the far right and the rich oil companies.

The fact that 100 companies alone are responsible  for 71% of the worlds CO2 emissions demonstrates why its easy to be cynical. If we see a shift towards developing better technologies a select few people are due to lose a lot of money.

If capitalism put a price tag on the environment, we can be sure that renewable technologies would be far more advanced today.

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by Quicksilver1989