Languish.org

Imagine a scenario where the World's govenrments agree a binding climate plan, they'll then enact it and policy begins to filter down to the people.

In this situation what measures would you agree to take as part of your government plan?

Or Indeed what significant changes have your yourself already made?

You've got up to 6 votes, mainly so you can answer the first 5 pairs of linked questions.


Note by significant I mean greater than 50%

I will obey what my government says.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll make approving comments about Greta Thunberg.

In Sweden we don't have to agree to laws (as individuals).

I didn't read the OP before voting, so I picked the options I currently am doing / will do.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 28, 2019, 12:15:22 PM
I didn't read the OP before voting, so I picked the options I currently am doing / will do.

Thanks for the reply,

The forum options don't really fit the poll, I think I should have clicked the allow people to change/edit vote option, so that people and see it and also vote on multiple occasions, rather than just once.  :(

Err... Most of the above.
I try not to drive, I have reduced meat consumption, I have a preference for colder tempatures,
I do keep the sin of flying a fair bit, I don't want to give that up. Though I am not doing it as much as I used to this is not intentional and I wish to undo it.

None of those questions require government action.

There is only one man alive in Iceland who's very concerned about climate change as seen by his actual actions. The rest hector and blather on social media. He lives off-grid in a tent but struggles with procuring enough food to last him through winter.

(https://www.visir.is/i/BE93E2B7AEFF3DE0ECFA380F73F84C6298739E4FC9ABB140ED8C3B45C2934E20_713x0.jpg)

I'm also baffled by this weird fixation on meat as a culprit, the least carbon-intensive food sources for Iceland are lamb, fish and photogenic sea mammals. Vegetarian fare aside from maybe potatoes (if you have a good summer) has to be shipped from long distances to market here.

You know, being concerned about climate change doesn't mean completely throwing away modern civilization right?

Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2019, 12:29:35 PM
You know, being concerned about climate change doesn't mean completely throwing away modern civilization right?

Tawk is cheap. Watch what people actually do.

Already making an effort on all of those five, although I definitely could do more.
A (heavy) tax on air fares is long overdue, and both car fuel and meat should be taxed more as well.

Quote from: Legbiter on December 28, 2019, 12:35:40 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2019, 12:29:35 PM
You know, being concerned about climate change doesn't mean completely throwing away modern civilization right?

Tawk is cheap. Watch what people actually do.

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

Quote from: Legbiter on December 28, 2019, 12:27:18 PM
There is only one man alive in Iceland who's very concerned about climate change as seen by his actual actions. The rest hector and blather on social media. He lives off-grid in a tent but struggles with procuring enough food to last him through winter.

(https://www.visir.is/i/BE93E2B7AEFF3DE0ECFA380F73F84C6298739E4FC9ABB140ED8C3B45C2934E20_713x0.jpg)

I'm also baffled by this weird fixation on meat as a culprit, the least carbon-intensive food sources for Iceland are lamb, fish and photogenic sea mammals. Vegetarian fare aside from maybe potatoes (if you have a good summer) has to be shipped from long distances to market here.

Your "country" has less people than my neighborhood. Meat consumption is definitely contributing to carbon emissions. Are you really this dense or just trolling as usual?

Quote from: Zoupa on December 28, 2019, 01:13:12 PM
Your "country" has less people than my neighborhood. Meat consumption is definitely contributing to carbon emissions. Are you really this dense or just trolling as usual?

And your country's entire carbon output is a fart in a hurricane compared to Chinese and Indian coal plants. That's where this fight will be won this century. As to meat your local farmers make a lot more sense than your fairtrade quinoa and soya shipped halfway across the world. Procure your food as much as you can from your local community.

My local real enviornmentalist should just join a Benedictine order. At least he'd channel his religious impulse to something more productive.

I can't drive and live in a city so rely on public transport. I have cut back on meat a fair amount and always do vegan Lent (Vent) - it does help that the food options on veganism have got a lot better in recent years. I try not to fly as much but I imagine that's my major contribution - but I have definitely looked to stop doing short, short-haul trips in Europe and looking for train options. Luckily I absolutely love a sleeper train so this opens up options (I really hope the sleeper train makes a comeback).

Quote from: Legbiter on December 28, 2019, 12:35:40 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2019, 12:29:35 PM
You know, being concerned about climate change doesn't mean completely throwing away modern civilization right?

Tawk is cheap. Watch what people actually do.

And by making modest changes you can cut your consumption by a huge chunk without going to crazy extremes to try and eliminate it all together.

Lest we forget Joseph Swan worked by candle light to make an electrically lit world.

Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2019, 04:06:55 PM
And by making modest changes you can cut your consumption by a huge chunk without going to crazy extremes to try and eliminate it all together.

Lest we forget Joseph Swan worked by candle light to make an electrically lit world.

I wouldn't mind cutting my consumption a huge chunk by making modest changes.  Please tell me more.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Waste_generation_per_day_per_capita%2C_September_2018.jpg)

:hmm:

What's the definition of waste here?

Biggest shits?

1.5 what?  Pretty dumbass graphic.

Wonder what it is that Mongolians are dumping in their landfills.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2019, 07:17:47 PM
1.5 what?  Pretty dumbass graphic.

Wonder what it is that Mongolians are dumping in their landfills.

What I've found so far is it's mainly landfill and powerstation waste (similarly disposed of ) Graphic is from the wiki page on over consumption.

I'd guess the higher figures for Germany, Ireland and Mongolia reflects their reliance on low energy density fuels like lignite, peat and cheap coal*/animal dung respectively.  Though those are just my hunches.


*iirc Ulan Bator is a horror story of man-made pollution, sitting in a large basin/valley, weak winter winds, temperature inversions, all whilst the locals burn cheap coal on inefficient stoves, often in poorly ventilated apartments or tradition yurts.

I would be willing to do basically anything to combat this problem.

Quote from: Valmy on December 28, 2019, 08:11:34 PM
I would be willing to do basically anything to combat this problem.

That's very good of you.

I'm in a bit of a similar situation to Mal, I don't think there's a lot more I can do myself, though I was thinking of giving up on red meat/ poultry and pork in the new year, but since I eat about as much meat as an average Indian Hindu, it won't make much difference.

Quote from: Legbiter on December 28, 2019, 01:25:14 PM
And your country's entire carbon output is a fart in a hurricane compared to Chinese and Indian coal plants. That's where this fight will be won this century. As to meat your local farmers make a lot more sense than your fairtrade quinoa and soya shipped halfway across the world. Procure your food as much as you can from your local community.

Indeed but the first world countries can take the lead and create affordable solutions we can offer the Indians and Chinese...well China might just find those solutions to they are sinking plenty of money into low emission generation.

QuoteMy local real enviornmentalist should just join a Benedictine order. At least he'd channel his religious impulse to something more productive.

I completely agree but I find it confusing why you praised him by saying that actions are better than talk. This hairshirt reaction is very Christian and I feel kind of emotionally charmed by it, but as you point out this is not a morality issue as much as it is an engineering and policy one. Having everybody in the world just go out and live in the wilderness and reject modernity just wouldn't work for many reasons. And very few people would actually do it no matter how many moral arguments one makes. You have to make city, and suburban, living sustainable. It is probably better for the world to have all the people living in concentrated places anyway.

Quote from: mongers on December 28, 2019, 05:05:08 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Waste_generation_per_day_per_capita%2C_September_2018.jpg)

:hmm:

Another map anticipating the US purchase of Greenland?

We could buy Iceland, and then deport the majority of the populace into the sea.

There is no solution to this that is of the form "Convince everyone to do X, which will reduce their carbon emissions enough to matter!"

If we decide that doing X is useful, then we need to align incentives appropriately. That can mean regulation, taxation, or technology. But wasting effort and energy trying to convince 7 billion people with differing values and ethics to somehow be better people, whatever that means, has never, ever, ever, ever, ever worked.

Yup. To the question what would you do about climate change?, I think the most effective answer is vote for people who actually give a shit.

Quote from: Zoupa on December 29, 2019, 02:37:10 PM
Yup. To the question what would you do about climate change?, I think the most effective answer is vote for people who actually give a shit.

Zoupa, in this scenario that's implicitly already happened:

Quote from: mongers on December 28, 2019, 09:21:23 AM
Imagine a scenario where the World's govenrments agree a binding climate plan, they'll then enact it and policy begins to filter down to the people.

In this situation what measures would you agree to take as part of your government plan?

Or Indeed what significant changes have your yourself already made?
....

So the question still stand, what would you do?

Me personally? The easiest would be restricting meat consumption, as I'm already eating very little.

Switching to electric transportation/mass transit would be ok. But I think the question is a non-sequitur (maybe I'm using that wrong).

The onus is on legislators. Individual citizens or consumers will always go for the cheapest option in 90% of cases because our day to day life is fucking rough as it is.

Im not sure how to vote though - I am not going to do anything other than respond to the incentives placed before.

If you want me to cut my use of fossil fuels to push my car around with my fat ass inside of it, then force me to pay for the actual cost of a gallon of gas, to include the carbon offset cost, then use that added money to re-forest - for example.

We basically have to do the following:

1. Cut emission of greenhouse gasses to net zero.
2. Remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
3. Adapt the world to the changes that we cannot realistically prevent or reverse from items 1 & 2.
4. Create a government agency with the resources, power and capability to coordinate these efforts in a non-partisan, non-political manner, to the extent that is possible. Something like the militaries Joint Chiefs of Staff for wartime - a group of technocrats responsible for shaping policy and making recommendations to Congress and the Executive.

Item #1 should be attacked by agressive carbon tax, cap and trade, and regulations. It should go after the creation and release of carbon into the environment at every stage. That means taxing it when comes out of the ground (combination of tax and cap and trade). One thing that must happen is we need to stop actually subsidizing fossil fuel generation! It is insane that the government actually gives money to companies to create more pollution. That must stop immediately of course.

Continue ramping up wind and solar, and aggressively subsidize research into modern nuclear power generation options - look at the Gates Foundation research into smaller scale, modern reactors that are fail safe. Create significant incentives for agressive research into power generation options that are carbon neutral.

Item #2. Start looking very hard at agriculture, and how we can make better use of land under cultivation (not sure there is a lot of uplift here, since there is already plenty of economic pressure in this space). But make sure that the true cost of meat production is factored in, and replace most farming subsidies with subsidies for large scale, carbon neutral farming methods.

Aforestation and re-forestation. We need to (again, agressively) treat deforestation as a global problem. Define it as a international crime subject to international action to deforest. Combine carrot and stick diplomacy to make it simply not good politics or economics to engage in slash and burn. The rain forests used to cover 12% of the earths surface, now they cover 5%. If there are countries that are doing this because their economies demand it, then make it in their interest to no longer need that - whatever gains they make, they need to compensated for by the rest of the world to stop destroying these global resources. It makes our fucking air. Sorry it is in your country, and your country has been shit on for a long time, but still, it makes our air damnit. You can't cut them down anymore. And if you insist (fucking Argentina) then the rest of the world should treat you the way it treats other rogue nations.

The state of New York used to be pretty much all forest. Now there is very little. We can change that/

Urbanization. Embrace it. Suburbs were a great idea, but yeah, turns out they were actually a pretty fucking terrible idea for a variety of reasons. How do we align incentives to kill sprawl and concentrate people again?

Those are just some starting thoughts. It takes political will however, and the will to drive through the considerable tactical resistance that will be inevitable from the various vested interest groups (plenty of them actually environmental groups, in fact).

Quote from: Berkut on December 29, 2019, 03:42:12 PM
Item #2. Start looking very hard at agriculture, and how we can make better use of land under cultivation (not sure there is a lot of uplift here, since there is already plenty of economic pressure in this space). But make sure that the true cost of meat production is factored in, and replace most farming subsidies with subsidies for large scale, carbon neutral farming methods.

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.

That's partly why I think I'm better off just reducing/cutting it out.

It's a bit like fish (which I love and would pick over meat any day) which I find really difficult to buy just because of how unsustainable our consumption is of certain fish stocks. I have an app which gives me the Marine Stewardship Council's recommendation, but unless I travel to a posh bit of town and go to a fishmonger, everything is amber or red. Except for tilapia :(

So I should only eat Tilapia? Bummer. But I could do that with some good sauce.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2019, 04:19:37 PMOne 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.

Quote from: The Larch on December 29, 2019, 06:08:29 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2019, 04:19:37 PMOne 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.

https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/

Calculate your carbon footprint.  Does not include air travel unfortunately.

I got 9,744 pounds a year.  US average is 24,550.

https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=3

Using this site to calculate air travel adds 1.09 metric tons.  That's 2,403 pounds.

Shit that's a lot in comparison to home energy, car (I drive very little) and waste generation.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2019, 09:09:43 PM
https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=3

Using this site to calculate air travel adds 1.09 metric tons.  That's 2,403 pounds.

Shit that's a lot in comparison to home energy, car (I drive very little) and waste generation.

Interesting, but the first calculator linked to seems very crude so nearly anything would be an improvement.

Mine is 18,733. Unlike the average American, I have the advantage of primarily using public transit to commute. I would guess that 36% of Virginia's electricity being generated by nuclear power would also help keep me below average.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 29, 2019, 10:51:35 PM
Mine is 18,733. Unlike the average American, I have the advantage of primarily using public transit to commute. I would guess that 36% of Virginia's electricity being generated by nuclear power would also help keep me below average.

Did you manually put in the renewable energy percentage in the box below electricity, or did you assume your zip would cover that?  It wasn't clear to me.

Mine is 14,700.  What kills me are the stupid PTACs in my apartment, which must be horribly inefficient for their purpose.

Quote from: mongers on December 28, 2019, 09:21:23 AM
Imagine a scenario where the World's govenrments agree a binding climate plan, they'll then enact it and policy begins to filter down to the people.

In this situation what measures would you agree to take as part of your government plan?

Or Indeed what significant changes have your yourself already made?

You've got up to 6 votes, mainly so you can answer the first 5 pairs of linked questions.


Note by significant I mean greater than 50%

I don't travel much, so I can't really cut on that, I mean, last time I boarded a flight was 30 years ago.
My heating is at 17C, I use wood and compressed wood pellets to maintain temp between 22-24C.  In summer time, I only use a/c in the office, due to equipement failures from excessive heat.
I'll settle for using my car a tad less often to travel outside my home town.  That way, I'll become depressive and commit suicide, so I won't be polluting the earth anymore by breathing.
And you're welcome to take my red meat from my cold dead hands. :P

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2019, 11:13:14 PM

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 29, 2019, 10:51:35 PM
Mine is 18,733. Unlike the average American, I have the advantage of primarily using public transit to commute. I would guess that 36% of Virginia's electricity being generated by nuclear power would also help keep me below average.

Did you manually put in the renewable energy percentage in the box below electricity, or did you assume your zip would cover that?  It wasn't clear to me.

I assumed ZIP would cover that. It would be trivial to get that data at least on a state level given the ZIP code.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 30, 2019, 08:05:39 AM
I assumed ZIP would cover that. It would be trivial to get that data at least on a state level given the ZIP code.

That's what i figured as well, but then why did they put that drop down there?

There seems to be a lot of focus on doing negative things to help. What about doing positive things?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2019, 09:01:41 PM
https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/

Calculate your carbon footprint.  Does not include air travel unfortunately.

I got 9,744 pounds a year.  US average is 24,550.

46,970  :showoff:

Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2019, 08:19:28 AM
There seems to be a lot of focus on doing negative things to help. What about doing positive things?

If we could just double the volume of the atmosphere, that would halve CO2 overnight.   :smarty:

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.

No flying & reducing my consumption of goods are the main I do. No single use plastic, ever.

Reducing meat is hard in a household with someone who is soy intolerant.

My A/C & eating are already at a min & almost entirely emission less.

In 5 year I might be able to take public transport to get to work but first they have to finish building the infrastructure.

Guys, some good thoughtful stuff already being done.  :cheers:

Quote from: Iormlund on December 30, 2019, 01:08:46 PM
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 :hmm:

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

Your kids use the earth's resources too.

Exactly.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2019, 04:19:37 PMOne 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.

Meat is the enviornmentally friendly option in your case. Most of the Earth's landmass is only suitable to livestock or dairy farming, not ceral agriculture. Absolutely massive herds of ruminants have been part of the Earth's ecology since way before the dinosaur extinction. The issue is the carbon footprint of your meat. In your case I'd think the winner would be Welsh lamb, for instance. For our Spaniard languishbrahs it's locally raised pork.

Quote from: Caliga on December 30, 2019, 10:53:35 AM
46,970  :showoff:

:blink:  How do you manage that?  Leave the car running all night long?  Open all the windows in winter?

Probably all the business trips.

Quote from: Iormlund on December 30, 2019, 01:08:46 PM

Most importantly though, I don't have kids.

Forgot about that one  :)

Probably the best single thing you can do.

Why not just kill yourself then? That would turn you into a point decimal something insignificant in carbon decrease blahblah.

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

Quote from: Legbiter on December 30, 2019, 07:42:08 PM
Why not just kill yourself then? That would turn you into a point decimal something insignificant in carbon decrease blahblah.

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

I'm hardly zealous. I never wanted kids, so it's not exactly a sacrifice on my part.

But numbers don't lie. Having kids is the single biggest multiplier of one's energy expenditure.

Quote from: Iormlund on December 30, 2019, 07:53:24 PMI'm hardly zealous. I never wanted kids, so it's not exactly a sacrifice on my part.

But numbers don't lie. Having kids is the single biggest multiplier of one's energy expenditure.

My five year old just hugged me the other day because he "loves me almost as much as mum".  :lol: You do you of course and as a fellow near-carnivore I want you on my side in a bar fight every day of the week...

Hell, whatever civilization replaces ours will be so perplexed by all the leftover plastic and our ancient smart phones.

Your kid won't have to compete with his for resources. You should be thanking him.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 30, 2019, 08:27:00 PM
Your kid won't have to compete with his for resources. You should be thanking him.

My children will make their own way in the world. And I'll be there as long as I can help. Preferably the day before I drop dead.

Its always a bit dodgy when people don't have kids for environmental reasons.
Afterall, that kind of caring for stuff beyond yourself attitude is what we want in the next generation.
It's idiocracy in action.

Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2019, 10:21:59 AM
Its always a bit dodgy when people don't have kids for environmental reasons.
Afterall, that kinds of caring for stuff beyond yourself attitude is what we want in the nex generation.
It's idiocracy in action.

:hmm:

I'm not so sure there's a gene that makes people care about others.  :hmm:

I think Squeeze is saying he wants The Good People to outbreed The Evil Thatcherites.  :hmm:

QuoteI'm not so sure there's a gene that makes people care about others.  :hmm:

There's not much there genetically (though there probably are some genes associated with that). But upbringing definitely impacts on it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2019, 11:48:24 AM
I think Squeeze is saying he wants The Good People to outbreed The Evil Thatcherites.  :hmm:

:yes:
But thinking and caring about things tends to correlate with a low birth rate.

Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2019, 10:21:59 AM
Its always a bit dodgy when people don't have kids for environmental reasons.
Afterall, that kind of caring for stuff beyond yourself attitude is what we want in the next generation.
It's idiocracy in action.

How many people don't have kids for environmental reasons?

Quote from: The Brain on December 31, 2019, 01:05:07 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2019, 10:21:59 AM
Its always a bit dodgy when people don't have kids for environmental reasons.
Afterall, that kind of caring for stuff beyond yourself attitude is what we want in the next generation.
It's idiocracy in action.

How many people don't have kids for environmental reasons?

No idea. But this isn't the first I've heard about it.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190920-the-couples-reconsidering-kids-because-of-climate-change

Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2019, 01:43:51 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 31, 2019, 01:05:07 PM

Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2019, 10:21:59 AM
Its always a bit dodgy when people don't have kids for environmental reasons.
Afterall, that kind of caring for stuff beyond yourself attitude is what we want in the next generation.
It's idiocracy in action.

How many people don't have kids for environmental reasons?

No idea. But this isn't the first I've heard about it.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190920-the-couples-reconsidering-kids-because-of-climate-change

QuoteBickner, now 28, quickly recognised that having a child in America – let alone four, five or 13 – would be the single most carbon-intensive choice she could make. In the developed world the carbon footprint of a child is roughly 58.6 metric tonnes annually, whereas that of a Malawian child has consistently been estimated between 0.07 and 0.1 metric tonnes annually.

So they could have just moved to Malawi. I think it's as simple as they don't want kids.

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

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2019, 02:28:07 PM
There's also the train of thought that any children you produce will be living in a post-apocalyptic world.

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

Since many of the best scientific ideas (perhaps ideas in general) come from the young it would be counterproductive not to have kids.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2019, 02:28:07 PM
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.

Quote from: The Brain on December 31, 2019, 03:34:58 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2019, 02:28:07 PM
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.

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/0cc855e6a9d22e39decde4608377b8fc/tumblr_nblk90mYrN1rps5oeo3_500.jpg)

The lucky ones?  :hmm:

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 31, 2019, 03:40:51 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 31, 2019, 03:34:58 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2019, 02:28:07 PM
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.

(https://66.media.tumblr.com/0cc855e6a9d22e39decde4608377b8fc/tumblr_nblk90mYrN1rps5oeo3_500.jpg)

The lucky ones?  :hmm:

The Bronx was named after a Swede. :hmm:

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 31, 2019, 03:09:57 PM
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. :yes:

Meanwhile Australian continues to burn:

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

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/993B/production/_110372293_0ba632a5-1150-422a-98ea-473d024e7a3b.jpg)

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/167CB/production/_110370129_gettyimages-1191100167.jpg)

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1663B/production/_110370719_d60b1b7e-393e-4584-9066-4205334a6b6c.jpg)

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/E427/production/_110370485_cd1ab757-0600-4936-86dd-7437ad543316.jpg)

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/17FB3/production/_110372289_5648c582-10e4-4656-b05e-0d1d4044a07c.jpg)

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/94E5/production/_110371183_e9152b51-d524-4db9-b78c-0941b8c82c20.jpg)

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/240B/production/_110372290_1321cf05-dc5c-436f-888e-b7de15930ff0.jpg)

Quote from: Legbiter on December 30, 2019, 07:42:08 PM
I feel like the most zealous here are just turning their Houellebecqian protagonist existence into something heroic.  :hmm:

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

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2019, 06:21:18 PM

Quote from: The Larch on December 29, 2019, 06:08:29 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2019, 04:19:37 PMOne 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.

Quote from: Valmy on December 30, 2019, 02:24:53 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on December 30, 2019, 01:08:46 PM
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 :hmm:

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:

QuoteSave 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).

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.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 03, 2020, 09:18:41 AM
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?

Your mom.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 03, 2020, 09:23:51 AM
Your mom.

Good. She can use the action. :)

Quote from: Zoupa on January 03, 2020, 09:18:41 AM

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.

Quote from: Maladict on January 03, 2020, 09:28:11 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 03, 2020, 09:18:41 AM

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.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 03, 2020, 09:30:41 AM


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.  :P

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.

Quote from: The Larch on January 03, 2020, 08:27:43 AM

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:

QuoteSave 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).

I loathe "scientists" who report this kind of "scientific study."  The measure of "eco footprint" isn't in how much land it takes to produce 1 KG of chicken and how much an it takes to feed a pet, nor can you compare the amount of agricultural land needed to feed a pet with the amount of mysterious land that can "produce 135 gigajoules a year."  Cars don't run on agricultural products, and the eco problem isn't how much land is used for various purposes, but how much CO2 is emitted by various kinds of consumption.

And how many cars are driven a mere 10k kilometers per year, especially in a spread-out country like Australia?  Could it be that they chose this number because it gave them the answer they wanted?  Survey says "yes."

Bullshit science from bullshit scientists trying to push an agenda don't help their supposedly actual cause at all.  It just discredits real science from real scientists.

My major contribution to ameliorating climate change isn't on the list - not having children. Helps me sleep on the half-dozen overseas flights I take for work every year to research articles I definitely couldn't do over the phone...

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

Offering a free phones to kids on the condition they eat their goldfish would totally work.

Apparently land spontaneously generates massive amounts of energy.  Which means ???? ---> eat your dog ---> ??? --> profit(?)

Cut out the middleman and eat children.

Quote from: grumbler on January 03, 2020, 10:15:15 AM
And how many cars are driven a mere 10k kilometers per year?

:Embarrass:

I need to up my emission game.

Quote from: Iormlund on January 04, 2020, 02:59:50 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 03, 2020, 10:15:15 AM
And how many cars are driven a mere 10k kilometers per year?

:Embarrass:

I need to up my emission game.

Plenty in the UK iirc the average mileage per capita is around 6500 miles, around that figure, though obviously with the caviate it being per capita

Six million hectares now burnt, that's 6-7 times greater than the Amazon fires last year.

A Sydney suburb was the hottest place on earth today, temperatures well into the mid-40s degrees. :bleeding:

If I burn 4 gallons of petrol a week, how many children should I NOT have to feel good about myself? Is there also a not-born children to eaten dogs exchange ratio, so that if I do end up with a kid I know how many dogs I should consume to make up for it?

Quote from: Tamas on January 04, 2020, 06:24:03 PM
If I burn 4 gallons of petrol a week, how many children should I NOT have to feel good about myself? Is there also a not-born children to eaten dogs exchange ratio, so that if I do end up with a kid I know how many dogs I should consume to make up for it?

[CdM]

Just make your bio-diesel out of beets and you'll be good to go.

[/CdM]

Quote from: Iormlund on January 04, 2020, 02:59:50 PM

Quote from: grumbler on January 03, 2020, 10:15:15 AM
And how many cars are driven a mere 10k kilometers per year?

:Embarrass:

I need to up my emission game.

Nice dishonest quote thing you have going on there.  :thumbsup:

Quote from: mongers on January 04, 2020, 03:28:07 PM
Plenty in the UK iirc the average mileage per capita is around 6500 miles, around that figure, though obviously with the caviate it being per capita

In 2015 the UK average per vehicle was about 12.5k kilometers/year.  In Australia in 2013 it was 15.5k.  Using 10k as the baseline still seems dishonest to me, even if there is some fraction of cars (more in the UK than Australia) that travel only that distance.

Quote from: mongers on January 02, 2020, 08:28:33 PM
Meanwhile Australian continues to burn:

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

Auckland, NZ, 2600 km away.

(https://preview.redd.it/pwhvpamuiw841.jpg?width=640&height=853&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e5e04a0a83b746f51fe302e0d1855522785d40a7)

Ah yes, the distant massive fire filter. Smooth.

More here: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12298143&ref=clavis