What Would You Do About Climate Change?

[The Brain]

There's also the train of thought that any children you produce will be living in a post-apocalyptic world.

Highly unlikely. An apocalypse is bound to wipe out most of humanity.

[Duque de Bragança]

There's also the train of thought that any children you produce will be living in a post-apocalyptic world.

Highly unlikely. An apocalypse is bound to wipe out most of humanity.

The lucky ones? 

[The Brain]

There's also the train of thought that any children you produce will be living in a post-apocalyptic world.

Highly unlikely. An apocalypse is bound to wipe out most of humanity.

The lucky ones? 

The Bronx was named after a Swede.

[Iormlund]

I like to think of my son ruling his own fiefdom in that post-apocalyptic world.

It might be a good idea to teach him to train German Shepherds.

[mongers]

Meanwhile Australian continues to burn:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-50971879

[Tamas]

I feel like the most zealous here are just turning their Houellebecqian protagonist existence into something heroic. 

Heh, not sure about people on this forum, but for sure that's a good point regarding some of the zealots out there.

[The Larch]

One aspect of the meat side of this that I find challenging is that the meat that is best environmentally is worst from an animal welfare (and flavour - I would argue) perspective. The least environmentally harmful form of meat production is industrial farming, the worst is organic, free-range giving the animals a good life.

Huh? Where do you get that from? Industrial farming has tons of issues, it is in no way the best environemtal option for meat consumption.

https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_summary.pdf
Agree it has a ton of issues, but free range has a bigger environmental impact - especially as, in the winter, those free range cattle are fed the same sort of soy feed as the intensively farmed animals.

This is why with meat I think it is just important/better to opt-out/cut-down in general.

Sorry S, I've taken an admitedly cursory look at the link you've provided and I can't really see it supporting any of the points you put forward, looking mostly at a possible comparison between industrial and "organic" methods of meat production. Either I'm just not getting your point or there could be some misunderstanding at play here.

[The Larch]

I'm moving to a new place.

It will make using the company bus viable, so that should help me drastically cut down on gas.
The building has much better insulation than my current place, so that will reduce my A/C and heating.

Most importantly though, I don't have kids.


Regarding food, eating veggies is not really viable for me. More than, for example, the amount of green peas in those tiny bachelor tins means a fun trip to the ER.

Why is that important? I don't see how if you had a kid that would change any of the previous stuff you said

Would your kids drive or rip up the insulation or something?

As it has already been said, the point would be that you're introducing yet another person who is going to consume resources at an unsustainable level during his/her lifetime. It's a rather crude point to make, and IMO it's not really the direction the argument should take, but there's a rationale behind it.

As an aside from this discussion, in a book about sustainability and everyday life that I bought some years ago (so not exactly cutting edge anymore) they put forward another related topic as a hook for attention, and that's pets. This is an article about the book that I've just googled:

Save the planet: time to eat dog?

The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.

Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.

The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.

"If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around," Brenda Vale said.

"A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable."

In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.

They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle's eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog's.

They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV.

Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming.

"The title of the book is a little bit of a shock tactic, I think, but though we are not advocating eating anyone's pet cat or dog there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment."

Professor Vale took her message to Wellington City Council last year, but councillors said banning traditional pets or letting people keep food animals in their homes were not acceptable options.

Kelly Jeffery, a Paraparaumu german shepherd breederwho once owned a large SUV, said eliminating traditional pets was "over the top".

"I think we need animals because they are a positive in our society. We can all make little changes to reduce carbon footprints but without pointing the finger at pets, which are part of family networks."

Owning rabbits is legal anywhere. Local bodies allow chickens, with some restrictions.

YOUR PET'S MARK

The eco-footprints of the family pet each year as calculated by the Vales:

German shepherds: 1.1 hectares, compared with 0.41ha for a large SUV.

Cats: 0.15ha (slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf). Hamsters: 0.014ha (two of them equate to a medium-sized plasma TV).

Goldfish: 0.00034ha (an eco-finprint equal to two cellphones).

[Zoupa]

My dogs ate table scraps and lived 18 years.

Can we stop blaming everyday people for shit that's out of their control?

Power and food production is responsible for 50% of CO2 emissions. Industry 20%, transportation 15%.

It's really up to the political class.

[The Brain]

My dogs ate table scraps and lived 18 years.

Can we stop blaming everyday people for shit that's out of their control?

Power and food production is responsible for 50% of CO2 emissions. Industry 20%, transportation 15%.

It's really up to the political class.

Table scraps isn't food? What the hell are you eating?

[Zoupa]

Your mom.

[The Brain]

Your mom.

Good. She can use the action.

[Maladict]

Can we stop blaming everyday people for shit that's out of their control?

Power and food production is responsible for 50% of CO2 emissions. Industry 20%, transportation 15%.

It's really up to the political class.

You mean the political class that gets voted into power on promises of tax cuts and deregulation or even outright climate change denial? Yeah, definitely not everyday people's fault.

[Zoupa]

Can we stop blaming everyday people for shit that's out of their control?

Power and food production is responsible for 50% of CO2 emissions. Industry 20%, transportation 15%.

It's really up to the political class.

You mean the political class that gets voted into power on promises of tax cuts and deregulation or even outright climate change denial? Yeah, definitely not everyday people's fault.

It's (partially) not. The folks voted in constantly under deliver on their environmental electoral programs. Constantly, constantly, constantly, in every country.

[Maladict]

It's (partially) not. The folks voted in constantly under deliver on their environmental electoral programs. Constantly, constantly, constantly, in every country.

I don't know, Trump seems to deliver on this environmental program just fine. 

The Liberals in power here are known as the Motorists-party, nobody votes for them out of environmental concerns, nor does anyone expect them to have any serious ones.
In fact, the Dutch supreme court has had to order them to do more to curb CO2 emissions, out of public safety concerns. The public itself doesn't seem to care that much.