Languish.org

What are 'we' doing about climate change, individually and as a community?

Might there be things we're doing and others approaches many of us could undertake?

Or are we mainly happy to kick cans down the road and rely on that old standard of 'this is too big a problem and can only be tackled by governments'?

Just under a hundred day till the Cop26 meeting in Scotland, the bright side is the US government is serious about the emergency we find ourselves in and will likely get some movement from over governments.
Though most of those key polluters seem addicted to the sound of tin cans on gravel.

Reproducing at a rate well under replacement level...

Preach about switching to a nuclear society.

I recycle so that plastic waste gets burned in Turkey instead on this island but that's about it I guess.

We have made a further reduction in meat consumption in the Hakluyt household, partly for health reasons.
My disabled son got a motability car and we paid extra so that he could have an electric car; my wife drives that when we take him on trips and loves it, so our next car will be electric.
For holidays I'm looking at trying to make them relatively low in carbon, so no weekends in Istanbul; now that I'm properly retired I will spend more time on trips and use trains rather than planes. So, if I go North america again it will be a mammoth lengthy business.

There is no point wearing a hair-shirt, the solution will have to be at the international and governmental level; but individuals can often reduce their carbon quite a bit with just a little bit of thought.

Always been into recycling even before it was the norm.
I've owned 2 cars in my life. Only second hand. And small. I avoid cars where at all possible.
I'm always keen to get on board with public transport campaigns.
I have reduced my meat consumption a fair bit. Its not a set scheduled thing of meat free Fridays or anything but a majority of the days of the week I won't have meat, at the least not a substantial amount.
I really don't like to waste food.
I tried to get a heat pump, but something fucked up in the application and I wasn't chosen sadly. Would love to do this if it was affordable.
Hmm...
I planted a bunch of trees just on the outside of my fence and regularly tend to them, scattering rocks to stop lawn mowers et al, to make sure they grow.
And not quite global warming but more generally save the planet wise I don't maintain a bowling green lawn, I try to encourage clover and wild flowers as much as I can, minimising mowings.
I think I covered it? Not sure.

No kids
No car
Try to avoid flying whenever possible
Recycling, trying to cut down use plastic packaging (it is really hard)
Reduced eating meat to about 2-3x a week
Cut out dairy except cheese

Working on a mid-career shift to sustainability
and looking into ways to adapt my home (grass roof or solar panels, better insulation)

Quote from: Maladict on July 24, 2021, 03:35:01 PM
No kids
No car
Try to avoid flying whenever possible
Recycling, trying to cut down use plastic packaging (it is really hard)
Reduced eating meat to about 2-3x a week
Cut out dairy except cheese

Working on a mid-career shift to sustainability
and looking into ways to adapt my home (grass roof or solar panels, better insulation)

:cool:

A thoughtful process.



edit:
More than I'm doing.

Building and launching orbital weapons platforms to eventually target Chinese coal power plants from my subterranean volcanic supervillain lair.

Quote from: Legbiter on July 25, 2021, 09:31:30 AM
Building and launching orbital weapons platforms to eventually target Chinese coal power plants from my subterranean volcanic supervillain lair.

Well that's certainly one plan, maybe not The plan.  :P

Cutting on grocery bags or other single-use disposable plastics (straws, small water bottles, etc...)
No ordering single items or such online
Switched to a renewables energy plan

It probably doesn't make that much of a difference to my carbon print...

Quote from: celedhring on July 25, 2021, 09:38:23 AM
Cutting on grocery bags or other single-use disposable plastics (straws, small water bottles, etc...)
No ordering single items or such online
Switched to a renewables energy plan

It probably doesn't make that much of a difference to my carbon print...

Yeah similar stuff for me - and I think mine is probably quite low.

I don't drive (can't drive). I signed up for renewable energy (but my flat has gas so it's just electricity). I re-use shopping bags, have a rucksack, tote bags etc (though I'm signed up to one of those meal kit people).

I don't generally eat meat at home - but I do eat a lot of fish (though I understand this is normally Scottish and sustainable - according to the fishmonger :hmm:).

Apart from parmesan or pecorino I don't really have dairy either - I prefer oat milk and don't really normally eat other cheeses.

I do fly for holidays - although if a train (especially a night train) I will take that. I know it's ineffective but I always pay the extra to off-set the carbon. It doesn't off-set the carbon but it probably does something.

QuoteJust under a hundred day till the Cop26 meeting in Scotland, the bright side is the US government is serious about the emergency we find ourselves in and will likely get some movement from over governments.

In many ways even the US is a sideshow - I think the most important thing is China is committed to energy transition.

QuoteOr are we mainly happy to kick cans down the road and rely on that old standard of 'this is too big a problem and can only be tackled by governments'?

Individual changes can have an impact but I think it's incredibly minor. I think it is so big and expensive a problem that you basically need the state - the huge financial resources of the state to pay for energy transition and also to fund research (like in a war for survival or during a pandemic).

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 25, 2021, 09:48:26 AMIndividual changes can have an impact but I think it's incredibly minor.

Yeah.

Convince the CCP leadership to phase out coal power. At the individual level it's just in-group signaling of your particular lifestyle brand. Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, etc.  :hmm:

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 25, 2021, 09:48:26 AM

Quote from: celedhring on July 25, 2021, 09:38:23 AM
Cutting on grocery bags or other single-use disposable plastics (straws, small water bottles, etc...)
No ordering single items or such online
Switched to a renewables energy plan

It probably doesn't make that much of a difference to my carbon print...

Yeah similar stuff for me - and I think mine is probably quite low.

I don't drive (can't drive). I signed up for renewable energy (but my flat has gas so it's just electricity). I re-use shopping bags, have a rucksack, tote bags etc (though I'm signed up to one of those meal kit people).

I don't generally eat meat at home - but I do eat a lot of fish (though I understand this is normally Scottish and sustainable - according to the fishmonger :hmm:).

Apart from parmesan or pecorino I don't really have dairy either - I prefer oat milk and don't really normally eat other cheeses.

I do fly for holidays - although if a train (especially a night train) I will take that. I know it's ineffective but I always pay the extra to off-set the carbon. It doesn't off-set the carbon but it probably does something.

QuoteJust under a hundred day till the Cop26 meeting in Scotland, the bright side is the US government is serious about the emergency we find ourselves in and will likely get some movement from over governments.

In many ways even the US is a sideshow - I think the most important thing is China is committed to energy transition.

QuoteOr are we mainly happy to kick cans down the road and rely on that old standard of 'this is too big a problem and can only be tackled by governments'?

Individual changes can have an impact but I think it's incredibly minor. I think it is so big and expensive a problem that you basically need the state - the huge financial resources of the state to pay for energy transition and also to fund research (like in a war for survival or during a pandemic).

Good stuff, though I don't see it as an individual or state action question, I think it can and must be both, acting in concert.

Also whilst talk of transition is good, there's such a long lead up time for some of these projects, it's necessary for us to significantly cut back on our overall energy use now.

As in recent decades we've 'benefited' from historically cheap, readily available energy. Aiming to just replaces this with a similar level of slightly more expensive greener options, misses the far wider environmental impacts of such a high level of energy use, movement of people/resources and excessive consumption.

Quote from: mongers on July 25, 2021, 10:09:00 AMAiming to just replaces this with a similar level of slightly more expensive greener options, misses the far wider environmental impacts of such a high level of energy use, movement of people/resources and excessive consumption.

The lifestyle of an immiserated Indian peasant is not going to be attractive to anyone but a handful of Western climate anchorites. 

Quote from: Legbiter on July 25, 2021, 10:21:53 AM

Quote from: mongers on July 25, 2021, 10:09:00 AMAiming to just replaces this with a similar level of slightly more expensive greener options, misses the far wider environmental impacts of such a high level of energy use, movement of people/resources and excessive consumption.

The lifestyle of an immiserated Indian peasant is not going to be attractive to anyone but a handful of Western climate anchorites.

Nice straw and wicker construction there Leggy, but I don't you'll persuade many to step inside the trap.  :P

Quote from: Legbiter on July 25, 2021, 10:21:53 AM

Quote from: mongers on July 25, 2021, 10:09:00 AMAiming to just replaces this with a similar level of slightly more expensive greener options, misses the far wider environmental impacts of such a high level of energy use, movement of people/resources and excessive consumption.

The lifestyle of an immiserated Indian peasant is not going to be attractive to anyone but a handful of Western climate anchorites.

OTOH, virtue signaling, while it doesn't help the planet, is cheap and fairly carbon-free (depending on the source of the electrons used to send the virtue signal).

Went I did about 1200-1300 miles on the trains in the 2nd half of June, I think about 35 separate journeys, I can only recall 2* of those being electric, the new hitachis I caught from Bath on my way to Oxford, the rest diesel; the UK still has a long way to go to 'green' public transport.

* edit:
I looked it up, just over 100 miles or 8.5% on electric trains vs 1150 miles on diesels.  :(

One positive thing I do is not use the controls/lights on various pedestrian/other* crossings on roads.

I prefer to wait 10-20 seconds for a good gap to appear in traffic and then cross safely, otherwise I'm causing several cars to stop and then have to accelerate back up to their previous speed, at rush hour that could easily be one or two dozen multi-ton vehicles.

I wonder what the resulting C02 emissions and extra pollution might be otherwise?


* pelican, toucan and Pegasus crossings.
On zebra crossings I just manually wave the slowing cars through.

I can't see that making much difference; though as it happens I also usually cross the road in a traffic gap rather than using a crossing.

The key problem with individual action is whenever we spend money it ends up in someone else's pockets; they then use that money to go motorbike scrambling, scoffing burgers or on vanity trips into space  :P

I think that was the point of Leg's comment; unless one lives on a subsistence smallholding and leaves the mainstream economy behind we are hugely limited in the cuts we can make.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 26, 2021, 09:07:21 AM
I can't see that making much difference; though as it happens I also usually cross the road in a traffic gap rather than using a crossing.

The key problem with individual action is whenever we spend money it ends up in someone else's pockets; they then use that money to go motorbike scrambling, scoffing burgers or on vanity trips into space  :P

I think that was the point of Leg's comment; unless one lives on a subsistence smallholding and leaves the mainstream economy behind we are hugely limited in the cuts we can make.

Still, if enough individuals act it will make a difference. If everyone stops eating meat the gains will offset the vegetable tycoon's trip to space.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 26, 2021, 09:07:21 AM
I can't see that making much difference; though as it happens I also usually cross the road in a traffic gap rather than using a crossing.

The key problem with individual action is whenever we spend money it ends up in someone else's pockets; they then use that money to go motorbike scrambling, scoffing burgers or on vanity trips into space  :P

I think that was the point of Leg's comment; unless one lives on a subsistence smallholding and leaves the mainstream economy behind we are hugely limited in the cuts we can make.

I'd also add that individual action is exactly the argument used by companies and government to excuse their inaction. I remember being at a friend's wedding and having an oil/gas lawyer explain how you can't really fault the oil companies - its all of our individual faults for creating demand and there's nothing more they can do but devastate the coast of Nigeria. In a sense they were right, in another, more important sense, they weren't :P

I'd also add my emphasis on transition, which I think is going to be a huge shift (and us in Europe are irrelevant compared to the shift that will happen in China), is, in part, because I think if we focus on the measures that a few hundred million individuals in rich countries can take then we won't be looking at a set of policies or a framework that can also lift billions from low or lower-middle incomes. I think the individual acts of a few hundred million people (albeit carbon intensive people) will not be enough to offset the increase in consumption and energy that we should want to see and be aiming for for billions of the rest of the world. We need to do both - a massive energy transition and climate justice.

Don't get me wrong here; I believe that individuals have a moral duty not to be wasteful and to avoid pointless carbon emissions and have taken several steps myself; but we not going to get anywhere without international action by states.

The most optimistic news on the horizon imo is that renewable energy is getting so cheap that it is becoming possible for people to adopt it out of mere greed. Perhaps the best thing for a rich western country to do is to facilitate the adoption of solar and windpower in places like sub-saharan Africa that are short on capital and the necessary skills; though if anything it seems that short-sighted selfishness is on the increase so I'll not be holding breath.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 26, 2021, 09:29:52 AM

I'd also add that individual action is exactly the argument used by companies and government to excuse their inaction. I remember being at a friend's wedding and having an oil/gas lawyer explain how you can't really fault the oil companies - its all of our individual faults for creating demand and there's nothing more they can do but devastate the coast of Nigeria. In a sense they were right, in another, more important sense, they weren't :P

... snip ....

As someone who's worked in the oil industry I can see his point of view and the 'justice' of your opinion, though as you say he's wrong.

But there's another dimension to his comments about the Nigerian delta; oil companies do what they do, pollute, because they can get away with it, corrupt and inefficient 'governments in the 3rd world are co-conspirators in the destruction.
Which is why we need to move as much energy production to near the location of it's consumption as possible, both to increase efficiency of use and because there's no way they could get away with that pollution in Western Europe.
Localism for energy production if you will; which is why I'd be happy to see an oil field developed in the New Forest or wind farms plastered across Dorset, the Jurassic coast and its sea scape.  :bowler:

From what I've read its certainly the case that the major oil companies see the writing on the wall and are fast trying to pivot to renewables.
But yeah, its a bit daft to blame the oil companies themselves purely for the 'we make petrol' part of their operation. Where there's opportunity for profit the capitalists will chase it.
Of course in other cases where they actively sabotage public transport, cut corners and generally behave in a horrific way, again in the pursuit of maximising profits...but a bit more blame worthy there.
The big challenge will be in overturning the current order and restoring things to a early 20th century state of affairs. Way too many people have the mental model that the way things are is the way they have always been and always can be. Considering how quickly things changed post war its not like they can't change again if the political will was there.

Quote from: mongers on July 26, 2021, 10:04:12 AM
But there's another dimension to his comments about the Nigerian delta; oil companies do what they do, pollute, because they can get away with it, corrupt and inefficient 'governments in the 3rd world are co-conspirators in the destruction.

Yes - but I would add that I'm not sure they're entirely separate. I think that oil companies benefit from being able to do with what they can get away with and have a vested interest in corrupt and inefficient governments. It's no different from oligarchs in CIS states.

QuoteWhich is why we need to move as much energy production to near the location of it's consumption as possible, both to increase efficiency of use and because there's no way they could get away with that pollution in Western Europe.
Localism for energy production if you will; which is why I'd be happy to see an oil field developed in the New Forest or wind farms plastered across Dorset, the Jurassic coast and its sea scape.  :bowler:

I think this will also be key in expanding access to energy. I think there's been a cycle (a bit like with telecoms) from lots of local producers, to big national grids and we will revert to lots of local producers - and I suspect that as with the towers and telecoms revolution in Africa there may be something similar with local, often renewable, energy generation.

But the key on renewables is battery/energy storage research and production and I think they've made progress over time - but I just think with the sort of state backing that we had for vaccine research we could probably revolutionise that sector.

Linked to that though - with RH's point - is that I don't know how our economy on energy is going to work when we start doing this in full. Because the more solar or wind capacity and the cheaper it gets, you are likely to produce more energy than you need. The more you add the less valuable it becomes and, unlike a power plant, we can't throttle production from the wind or the sun. Storage will be part of the solution, but even with mass storage it is possible it drives prices down even into negative territory - and I don't know how that works with our economic system/model. I'm interested to find out though :lol: :hmm:

I mean it might be like nuclear where we end up having to pay the wind farms of Dogger Bank to keep turning even if the energy produced is useless - a bit like we need to keep the nuclear power plants on even if we don't actually need their energy at that moment.

Obviously on solar there are also wider ethical issues given how many solar panels are produced in Xinjiang (I believe it's estimated at about 45%) - which need to be addressed. It's very difficult to talk about climate justice if one of the foundational pieces is forced labour.

If the supply of carbon free energy becomes so abundant the it becomes less expensive than the cost to produce more of it, we will have won.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 26, 2021, 11:12:44 AM
If the supply of carbon free energy becomes so abundant the it becomes less expensive than the cost to produce more of it, we will have won.

A huge If, nothing is replacing kerosene anytime soon, other than solar or gas in the some 3rd world homes, which is a relatively small percentage of it's use.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 26, 2021, 11:05:25 AM

Quote from: mongers on July 26, 2021, 10:04:12 AM
But there's another dimension to his comments about the Nigerian delta; oil companies do what they do, pollute, because they can get away with it, corrupt and inefficient 'governments in the 3rd world are co-conspirators in the destruction.

Yes - but I would add that I'm not sure they're entirely separate. I think that oil companies benefit from being able to do with what they can get away with and have a vested interest in corrupt and inefficient governments. It's no different from oligarchs in CIS states.

... snip ...

Yes and hence my use of "co-conspirators", but I think we're on the same page as regards that view.

Quote from: mongers on July 26, 2021, 11:39:07 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 26, 2021, 11:12:44 AM
If the supply of carbon free energy becomes so abundant the it becomes less expensive than the cost to produce more of it, we will have won.

A huge If, nothing is replacing kerosene anytime soon, other than solar or gas in the some 3rd world homes, which is a relatively small percentage of it's use.

Right.  In other words Sheilbh should not be worried too much about that occurring.  If it does it would cause for celebration.

It's not a worry - it's a question: what then?

And my understanding is this already happens during off-peak hours in California (middle of the day when the solar is best but demand is low) there is so much excess supply of energy. In the short term we need to develop storage and subsidse installation of solar and wind - or maybe have a guaranteed wholesale price like we do with nuclear to cover the cost of installation rather than let the market make it potentially uneconomic. In the long run I wonder if it causes a shift in our concept of the economic.

Edit: I think it's also happened (though less commonly) in the UK with wind but I'm less sure.

One thing I thought was creepy was that there is a company giving out smart meters in California that can then be centrally controlled so they can have temp set higher on days when they have alerts telling Californians to minimize their energy usage.

Is this one of things where it is good to not do stuff?  Cause not doing stuff is something I've very good at.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 26, 2021, 09:29:52 AM
I'd also add that individual action is exactly the argument used by companies and government to excuse their inaction. I remember being at a friend's wedding and having an oil/gas lawyer explain how you can't really fault the oil companies - its all of our individual faults for creating demand and there's nothing more they can do but devastate the coast of Nigeria. In a sense they were right, in another, more important sense, they weren't :P

If you're reporting his comment accurately he made a very poor point.  Of course there's something they can do.  They can cease operations.

The better point IMO is the hypocrisy of the car-driving airplane traveling consumer bitching about oil companies.  They didn't hold a gun to your head.

Incidentally, one of the myriad advantages of a carbon tax is that it renders the blame game moot.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 26, 2021, 11:59:28 AM
It's not a worry - it's a question: what then?

And my understanding is this already happens during off-peak hours in California (middle of the day when the solar is best but demand is low) there is so much excess supply of energy. In the short term we need to develop storage and subsidse installation of solar and wind - or maybe have a guaranteed wholesale price like we do with nuclear to cover the cost of installation rather than let the market make it potentially uneconomic. In the long run I wonder if it causes a shift in our concept of the economic.

Edit: I think it's also happened (though less commonly) in the UK with wind but I'm less sure.

I don't understand the connection you are making between the ability to make electricity from solar panels at mid day and the cost of the energy.   Power companies may create pricing incentives to get people to attend to more of their end of day electricity consuming chores at other times of the day.  But, as you say, storage of solar and wind is the answer to what happens when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.  And the cost of all that infrastructure is factored into the total price of the energy being produced.

Say somehow we can get free, clean energy, and as much as anyone could ever wish for.
Would we not still be left with a massive problem, as all energy ends up as heat?

Quote from: Maladict on July 26, 2021, 12:55:08 PM
Say somehow we can get free, clean energy, and as much as anyone could ever wish for.
Would we not still be left with a massive problem, as all energy ends up as heat?

Not in the short and medium term, at least. We'd have to use a LOT more energy to make a difference globally.

Quote from: Maladict on July 26, 2021, 12:55:08 PM
Say somehow we can get free, clean energy, and as much as anyone could ever wish for.
Would we not still be left with a massive problem, as all energy ends up as heat?

The amount of heat electrical generation and use might cause is miniscule compared to the heat of the Sun.  The problem is not heat generation.  The problem is the greenhouse cases trapping the heat.

I appreciate Mongers playing real life frogger to atone for mankind's carbon sins, though i don't know how effective it is.

Quote from: HVC on July 26, 2021, 02:40:39 PM
I appreciate Mongers playing real life frogger to atone for mankind's carbon sins, though i don't know how effective it is.

:D

I've been recycling ever since it was possible to do it over here (maybe some 25 years ago, I think).
I don't go around driving for fun, wasting fuel in the process.  Whatever I can recuperate/reuse, I do.
I try to buy more quality stuff that will last longer and be easier to repair than jump on the latest special.
I've started reducing my dependancy on animal protein but it is damn tough.  And I still hate soja/tofu.
I've reinsulated parts of my home to reduce the use of combustible during winter.
I'm thinking/planning on going geothermal in a few years, if the prices drop.

What I do? I don't have a car.

Quote from: viper37 on July 26, 2021, 08:17:17 PM
I've been recycling ever since it was possible to do it over here (maybe some 25 years ago, I think).
I don't go around driving for fun, wasting fuel in the process.  Whatever I can recuperate/reuse, I do.
I try to buy more quality stuff that will last longer and be easier to repair than jump on the latest special.
I've started reducing my dependancy on animal protein but it is damn tough.  And I still hate soja/tofu.
I've reinsulated parts of my home to reduce the use of combustible during winter.
I'm thinking/planning on going geothermal in a few years, if the prices drop.

:cool:

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2021, 12:28:35 PM
Is this one of things where it is good to not do stuff?  Cause not doing stuff is something I've very good at.

No, apparently you should carry on as normal and governments will magically transform the world, without most people having to adapt their behaviour to the changing climate. 

Now if your normal is not doing too much, then that may help or it may send us back to the stone age.  :hmm:

Quote from: mongers on July 26, 2021, 10:03:37 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 26, 2021, 12:28:35 PM
Is this one of things where it is good to not do stuff?  Cause not doing stuff is something I've very good at.

No, apparently you should carry on as normal and governments will magically transform the world, without most people having to adapt their behaviour to the changing climate. 

Now if your normal is not doing too much, then that may help or it may send us back to the stone age.  :hmm:

I mean ultimately what is "normal" has to be fixed. A few principled people wearing hair shirts and living in caves is admirable but all humans in the entire world have to participate here.

In any case I have solar panels that generate more power than my house uses every year and I have a hybrid car that I don't even drive much anymore thanks to the endless pandemic. My next car will be electric and will be mostly powered by my solar panels. I certainly obsessively recycle as well.

I wonder at how much of an effect individual consumers can actually have though.

Recycling plastic is basically a waste of effort. If we want to reduce the amount of plastic, we have to produce less plastic - not recycle some fraction of the amount we produce more of every year.

Smarmy comments about magic governments are kind of funny, since they are presented as the alternative to magic people magically changing, even when we know that if people did magically change at some rate double or even triple what they are doing now, it would make no discernible difference in the global warming problem. IMO, it seems like exactly he opposite - that demands that people somehow stop being people are a convenient way to obfuscate from the real and only solution - significant and serious legal changes to force businesses to pay the previously unrealized costs of their own business, which will then allow the market to help price the actual cost of negative climate activity. But lets ignore that, and just Tsk-tsk our neighbors for not recycling their cardboard boxes from Amazon.

People are not going to "adapt their behavior to the changing climate" because someone guilts them into doing so - people will continue to act just like people (in the aggregate) have acted for as long as there have been people. They will respond to their actual, day to day incentives. Many of them, maybe even most of them, don't even have the *ability* to do anything different. If you want people to change their behavior, or more importantly you want businesses to change their behavior, change their incentives. It is literally the ONLY way that actually works.

The irony is that the reality is that efforts like "recycling" are propagandized by the very businesses who are selling us more plastic. It is a great way for them to pretend like they give a shit, as if the problem of global plastic production, it's waste, and it environmental impact could be solved if only people just recycled more, while the companies produce more and more and more plastic year after year after year. But don't worry about that! If you just do your part, why, we can recycle like....8% of it!

I don't have a car, and I don't travel much, in general. I don't engage in conspicuous consumption, really, though I need to sort out my diet (for health reasons, mostly). Less processed food, more locally sourced greenery. And of course recycling, avoiding plastics etc.

Btw, carbon emissions by source in the EU in 2019:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/999398/carbon-dioxide-emissions-sources-european-union-eu/

(https://i.postimg.cc/D0v6xs1X/ces.jpg)

Quote from: Syt on July 27, 2021, 12:30:57 AM
Btw, carbon emissions by source in the EU in 2019:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/999398/carbon-dioxide-emissions-sources-european-union-eu/

(https://i.postimg.cc/D0v6xs1X/ces.jpg)

You have to go after the big items in order to effect real change.

Focusing on the small stuff, IMO, is almost Machiavellian in that it is a way to distract from the actual problems and their solutions.

Now, part of tackling things like road transportation and electricity and heat production is getting people who consume those things to change their behaviors. But that isn't going to happen in any way that can actuallly make a difference by just asking people to change. Some will, but most will not, and even those who do change won't do so enough.

No, you have to change their incentives. Charge a hell of a lot more for gas, and invest more in better alternatives. The consumption of energy....well, that is probably just not possible to reduce in any real way. I mean, I doubt it has EVER happened in all of human history. Humans are going to keep consuming more and more and more energy. The trick there isn't to reduce energy consumption, but to produce energy more cleanly. Which means embracing nuclear.

QuoteNow, part of tackling things like road transportation and electricity and heat production is getting people who consume those things to change their behaviors. But that isn't going to happen in any way that can actuallly make a difference by just asking people to change. Some will, but most will not, and even those who do change won't do so enough.

You'd be surprised.
An awful lot of people rarely leave their town and will drive well under a mile down the road just to buy some bread. And the bloody school run....Its turned into an arms race with parents driving because they think all the cars near the school make it dangerous to walk. Thankfully there's efforts to tackle that in place.
I do think we could knock down car use by a good 25% (number pulled from my arse) if people would just be more conscientious about it.

QuoteNo, you have to change their incentives. Charge a hell of a lot more for gas, and invest more in better alternatives. The consumption of energy....well, that is probably just not possible to reduce in any real way. I mean, I doubt it has EVER happened in all of human history. Humans are going to keep consuming more and more and more energy. The trick there isn't to reduce energy consumption, but to produce energy more cleanly. Which means embracing nuclear.

But yes. This is the problem really. Public transport is generally crap. Its easy enough in London and NYC to live without a car but expecting someone in a random no-name town to do it is just ignorant.
The iffy thing with increasing petrol tax too is that this will disproportionately fall on the poor who are already suffering from often being economically forced to live somewhere they've no choice but to drive.
IMO we need some kind of a post-code and/or income based approach to taxation of cars and petrol. If you live in a city there should be public transport there for you and you should be strongly discouraged from having a car. Whilst this is done however we don't want to incentivise people to move to the countryside.

With the rise in WFH I see increasing rumblings of paying people to commute and this just sits very badly with me. Its encouraging people to live in more remote locations knowing there's no drawback from the inconvenience, there's a reward even,

Quote from: Syt on July 27, 2021, 12:30:57 AM
Btw, carbon emissions by source in the EU in 2019:

UK chart by source - and the change is really interesting. In part we're benefiting from Maggie (:ph34r:) and having no domestic coal industy anymore so we've gone from coal being about 40% of power in the 2000s to 2% now so power used to be by far the biggest but has fallen dramatically. I think there's one coal power plant left and it'll be closed in 2024. Also I think there are genuine achievements on the policy front especially around manufacturing industry energy standards by Labour, Coalition and Tory governments since about 2008 - there's a lot of continuity from Miliband to Davey to Sharma and Kwarteng (they should all be trying to claim credit but for some reason don't):
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/cpsprodpb/0742/production/_105485810_emissions_02-nc.png)

But this is what I mean about the challenge now being about distribution of costs - because a lot of the low hanging fruit (not burining coal) has been done. So about a third of emissions on that (so 75% of emissions from business, residential and agriculture) relate to heating and (far less common) AC. There is a huge benefit from proper insulation, better windows but also updating heating systems - I know that gas heating and hobs are being abolished. But that will cost money especially for the classic asset-rich/cash-poor home owner like a pensioner. We need to think about how to do that in a just way and I'm not sure where they're yet (given the government's approach it'll probably just be a massive bung for older voters paid for by a "climate levy" on students :bleeding:).

Similarly if you break down transport - most of that is surface transport and cars which is a growing share - and we need to work out how to deal with that. But again that will have an individual cost and will be distributed unequally. The gilets jaunes shouldn't haunt all of Europe but it's an example we need to learn from that measures need to be seen as "fair" - I think this will be key about transport or buildings.

Recycling, while I continue to do so to the extent made possible by the ridiculously tiny bins provided at our block of flats, seems like a giant scam.

Once China stopped accepting massive heaps of plastic trash the plastic waste problem started proliferating across the world.

A few years ago the Guardian revealed some massive scam where most of the UK's recyclable trash was carried abroad I think possibly the Netherlands but not before taking subsidies for recycling it. The scale of it sounded massive but not even the Guardian was eager to keep it on people's minds, I guess not wanting to work against climate change initiatives.

Then fairly recently it was revealed that Turkey is the new China, accepting shiploads of the first world's trash that people think they threw out to be recycled.

Here we meticulously sort our plastic trash for "recycling" which means it's getting shipped to Indonesia to be incinerated or dumped in a landfill there. Organic household waste is being turned into mulch at a central location which unfortunately is so toxic in heavy metals and microplastics that it's unusable. Metal is easy I guess. Paper is only reusable on a fairly small scale because of contamination from other trash. :hmm:

Its not like stuff being shipped overseas is how things have to be. Its merely the logical outcome of leaving recycling up to the free market. Of course foreign companies can undercut local ones and offer the best prices by cutting corners and not handling things properly.
Western countries need to wake up to the fact this practice won't continue forever as these countries become wise to whats going on and how some of their citizens are fucking up the country for minimal profit. Hopefully as an outcome of the resillient economy stuff of corona we will see local recycling firms supported.

Quote from: Tyr on July 27, 2021, 06:49:04 AM
Its not like stuff being shipped overseas is how things have to be. Its merely the logical outcome of leaving recycling up to the free market. Of course foreign companies can undercut local ones and offer the best prices by cutting corners and not handling things properly.
Western countries need to wake up to the fact this practice won't continue forever as these countries become wise to whats going on and how some of their citizens are fucking up the country for minimal profit. Hopefully as an outcome of the resillient economy stuff of corona we will see local recycling firms supported.

The way I understand the only reason recycling exists in its current form is that there are subsidies around it. So people take the state subsidies then dump the stuff in Asia and rake in the profits.

I guess you are right that states could set up recycling infrastructure, and then sell the recycled materials but I assume there are reasons that hasn't been tried yet.

Interesting to note that metals indeed seem to work with recycling the free market has been scooping them up for many decades. One recurring crime in Hungary used to be the vandalising of railroads mostly for wiring in the electrical equipment to be sold to recyclers.

Quote from: Tamas on July 27, 2021, 06:57:58 AM

Quote from: Tyr on July 27, 2021, 06:49:04 AM
Its not like stuff being shipped overseas is how things have to be. Its merely the logical outcome of leaving recycling up to the free market. Of course foreign companies can undercut local ones and offer the best prices by cutting corners and not handling things properly.
Western countries need to wake up to the fact this practice won't continue forever as these countries become wise to whats going on and how some of their citizens are fucking up the country for minimal profit. Hopefully as an outcome of the resillient economy stuff of corona we will see local recycling firms supported.

The way I understand the only reason recycling exists in its current form is that there are subsidies around it. So people take the state subsidies then dump the stuff in Asia and rake in the profits.

I guess you are right that states could set up recycling infrastructure, and then sell the recycled materials but I assume there are reasons that hasn't been tried yet.

It was a while ago so can't re-find it but I remember reading an article about how there used to be a lot of domestic recycling in the US until the Chinese firms came in and undercut them out of business.
As in all these things I imagine being able to scale up drastically as foreign undercutting is eliminated will help keep costs down. It still might become a bit more expensive, but I'd be willing to pay an extra pound or two of tax for waste being handled properly.

QuoteInteresting to note that metals indeed seem to work with recycling the free market has been scooping them up for many decades. One recurring crime in Hungary used to be the vandalising of railroads mostly for wiring in the electrical equipment to be sold to recyclers.

Oh yes. Happens here too. There's a major railway line that was mothballed and a bunch of people in hi-vis came along and tore it up to sell.
You regularly read of people trashing ancient church roofs to steal the lead et al.

Failing to recycling isn't a significant cause of climate change, more a token of general pollution and wastefulness of resources. So not sure why it's brought up so much with regard to global warming, other than as a convenient council of despair - 'Look recycling doesn't work, it's a scam, so why should I bother to do it and likely other environmental schemes are also.

As Shelf and others here have said he we should be concentrating on the big ticket items, like household heating with gas, road transport, making agriculture more efficient especially as per land usage, finding alternatives to growing aircraft emissions and consuming less?

Quote from: mongers on July 27, 2021, 07:41:01 AM
Failing to recycling isn't a significant cause of climate change, more a token of general pollution and wastefulness of resources. So not sure why it's brought up so much with regard to global warming, other than as a convenient council of despair - 'Look recycling doesn't work, it's a scam, so why should I bother to do it and likely other environmental schemes are also.

As Shelf and others here have said he we should be concentrating on the big ticket items, like household heating with gas, road transport, making agriculture more efficient especially as per land usage, finding alternatives to growing aircraft emissions and consuming less?

I think Berkut had a good point on energy usage. It is never going to go down barring a global thermonuclear war, so production must be made cleaner. Which we already have readily available its called nuclear power. But that's way too science-y and scary for the general public, so we are screwed.

Quote from: Tamas on July 27, 2021, 08:01:14 AM

I think Berkut had a good point on energy usage. It is never going to go down barring a global thermonuclear war, so production must be made cleaner. Which we already have readily available its called nuclear power. But that's way too science-y and scary for the general public, so we are screwed.

We'll I agree with you about the efficiency of nuclear and it being part of the solution, but we're not screwed just because a minority of the public think it's scary; Tamas try being optimistic for once!

Quote from: mongers on July 27, 2021, 08:07:21 AM

Quote from: Tamas on July 27, 2021, 08:01:14 AM

I think Berkut had a good point on energy usage. It is never going to go down barring a global thermonuclear war, so production must be made cleaner. Which we already have readily available its called nuclear power. But that's way too science-y and scary for the general public, so we are screwed.

We'll I agree with you about the efficiency of nuclear and it being part of the solution, but we're not screwed just because a minority of the public think it's scary; Tamas try being optimistic for once!

Look at Germany - one nuclear power plant gets damaged by a historically rare tsunami in Japan and they close down all their nucular plants and switch back to coal.

Quote from: mongers on July 27, 2021, 07:41:01 AM
Failing to recycling isn't a significant cause of climate change, more a token of general pollution and wastefulness of resources. So not sure why it's brought up so much with regard to global warming, other than as a convenient council of despair - 'Look recycling doesn't work, it's a scam, so why should I bother to do it and likely other environmental schemes are also.

As Shelf and others here have said he we should be concentrating on the big ticket items, like household heating with gas, road transport, making agriculture more efficient especially as per land usage, finding alternatives to growing aircraft emissions and consuming less?

I'd add that plastic is one of those.

There's an amazing piece of analysis by Our World in Data that in terms of plastic waste in the oceans it seems that under 1% comes from Europe - about 5% comes from North America. Over 80% comes from Asia. In part no doubt that's because of individual actions like recycling and no-one wanting plastic straws. But I think that part of it is actually that there are market and regulatory pressures that are forcing a change away from plastic in Europe and North America - while in Asia there's less and many countries (especially South-East Asia) are poorer and less able to make/enforce changes in regulations and I'd bet that 90% of that plastic trash is coming from Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever etc. It's cheap and it's reliable.

I think it's another thing where the big control is in the hands of companies and they need to be forced to change it by the state. And of course plastic isn't just waste, it has a huge carbon footprint.

In India you have more than one billion people who just toss plastic trash into the street. I suspect it's the same in some other Asian countries.

Plastic waste is only tangentially related to global warming but its definitely a serious environmental issue in its own right.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 27, 2021, 08:23:40 AM

Quote from: mongers on July 27, 2021, 07:41:01 AM
Failing to recycling isn't a significant cause of climate change, more a token of general pollution and wastefulness of resources. So not sure why it's brought up so much with regard to global warming, other than as a convenient council of despair - 'Look recycling doesn't work, it's a scam, so why should I bother to do it and likely other environmental schemes are also.

As Shelf and others here have said he we should be concentrating on the big ticket items, like household heating with gas, road transport, making agriculture more efficient especially as per land usage, finding alternatives to growing aircraft emissions and consuming less?

I'd add that plastic is one of those.

There's an amazing piece of analysis by Our World in Data that in terms of plastic waste in the oceans it seems that under 1% comes from Europe - about 5% comes from North America. Over 80% comes from Asia. In part no doubt that's because of individual actions like recycling and no-one wanting plastic straws. But I think that part of it is actually that there are market and regulatory pressures that are forcing a change away from plastic in Europe and North America - while in Asia there's less and many countries (especially South-East Asia) are poorer and less able to make/enforce changes in regulations and I'd bet that 90% of that plastic trash is coming from Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever etc. It's cheap and it's reliable.

I think it's another thing where the big control is in the hands of companies and they need to be forced to change it by the state. And of course plastic isn't just waste, it has a huge carbon footprint.

Plastic is certainly totemic, but it's only part of the wider problem because the fractional distillation of oil is an amazing process, barely anything in a barrel of oil is wasted and it's utilised in so many sectors of the modern world.

What do we make and repair our roads with, either heavy oil products* or concrete, those seem to be the difficult current choices.

Shelf, if you ever have a chance to look around an oil refinery,do, it's an awesome spectacle.



* though quite a bit of waste glass is now included into some road tarmacs/finishings.

Quote from: mongers on July 27, 2021, 08:37:41 AM
Plastic is certainly totemic, but it's only part of the wider problem because the fractional distillation of oil is an amazing process, barely anything in a barrel of oil is wasted and it's utilised in so many sectors of the modern world.

What do we make and repair our roads with, either heavy oil products* or concrete, those seem to be the difficult current choices.

Shelf, if you ever have a chance to look around an oil refinery,do, it's an awesome spectacle.



* though quite a bit of waste glass is now included into some road tarmacs/finishings.

I would love to.

When I was in a law firm one of our clients was National Grid and a partner I worked with got a tour of the National Grid control room which I got embarrassingly excited about - never got invited myself and have since moved on :P :lol:

But it looks like this - she did have photos - and just seems very cool to a geek like me :blush:
(https://www.current-news.co.uk/static/images/_1600x1000_crop_center-center/Control_Room_--_National_Grid.jpg)

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 27, 2021, 08:50:21 AM

I would love to.

When I was in a law firm one of our clients was National Grid and a partner I worked with got a tour of the National Grid control room which I got embarrassingly excited about - never got invited myself and have since moved on :P :lol:

But it looks like this - she did have photos - and just seems very cool to a geek like me :blush:

:cool:

Oh that's rather neat. 

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 27, 2021, 08:50:21 AM
When I was in a law firm one of our clients was National Grid and a partner I worked with got a tour of the National Grid control room which I got embarrassingly excited about - never got invited myself and have since moved on :P :lol:

Pfft, looks cluttered. Not like this Soviet one in Riga in the 70s. :P

(https://f4.bcbits.com/img/a2848673828_10.jpg)

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 27, 2021, 08:23:40 AM

Quote from: mongers on July 27, 2021, 07:41:01 AM
Failing to recycling isn't a significant cause of climate change, more a token of general pollution and wastefulness of resources. So not sure why it's brought up so much with regard to global warming, other than as a convenient council of despair - 'Look recycling doesn't work, it's a scam, so why should I bother to do it and likely other environmental schemes are also.

As Shelf and others here have said he we should be concentrating on the big ticket items, like household heating with gas, road transport, making agriculture more efficient especially as per land usage, finding alternatives to growing aircraft emissions and consuming less?

I'd add that plastic is one of those.

There's an amazing piece of analysis by Our World in Data that in terms of plastic waste in the oceans it seems that under 1% comes from Europe - about 5% comes from North America. Over 80% comes from Asia. In part no doubt that's because of individual actions like recycling and no-one wanting plastic straws. But I think that part of it is actually that there are market and regulatory pressures that are forcing a change away from plastic in Europe and North America - while in Asia there's less and many countries (especially South-East Asia) are poorer and less able to make/enforce changes in regulations and I'd bet that 90% of that plastic trash is coming from Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever etc. It's cheap and it's reliable.

I think it's another thing where the big control is in the hands of companies and they need to be forced to change it by the state. And of course plastic isn't just waste, it has a huge carbon footprint.

Exactly - this is what frustrates me. So much of this comes from virtue signalling more then any actual desire to look at the tough reality.

Poor countries don't fucking care about the climate. In fact, caring about the climate is almost exclusively a luxury of the wealthy.

This goes back to my thread about the need for people to recognize the power of lifting people out of poverty worldwide. It's not just the right thing to do, it's absolutely necessary to address global problems.

Just look at Argentina. They are burning down their rain forests as fast as they can, and they do not fucking CARE what anyone else thinks about it, even if it is pretty obvious that the long term detrimental effects are going to be born by them more then anyone else!

Yeah the rainforest thing is one thing that always irked me. I mean obviously they should be preserved, but wasn't much of Europe a big bloody forest as well? We got rid most of it, built wealthy economies in its place, and then we started telling the rest of the world to stay poor and undeveloped otherwise they endanger our lives of comfort and luxury.

Quote from: Tamas on July 27, 2021, 11:04:11 AM
Yeah the rainforest thing is one thing that always irked me. I mean obviously they should be preserved, but wasn't much of Europe a big bloody forest as well? We got rid most of it, built wealthy economies in its place, and then we started telling the rest of the world to stay poor and undeveloped otherwise they endanger our lives of comfort and luxury.

Europe didn't have rainforests, silly.

Quote from: The Brain on July 27, 2021, 11:05:13 AM

Quote from: Tamas on July 27, 2021, 11:04:11 AM
Yeah the rainforest thing is one thing that always irked me. I mean obviously they should be preserved, but wasn't much of Europe a big bloody forest as well? We got rid most of it, built wealthy economies in its place, and then we started telling the rest of the world to stay poor and undeveloped otherwise they endanger our lives of comfort and luxury.

Europe didn't have rainforests, silly.

We had more than enough natural forests and vegetation, marshes etc we got rid of so we could prosper.

Quote from: Tamas on July 27, 2021, 11:06:57 AM

Quote from: The Brain on July 27, 2021, 11:05:13 AM

Quote from: Tamas on July 27, 2021, 11:04:11 AM
Yeah the rainforest thing is one thing that always irked me. I mean obviously they should be preserved, but wasn't much of Europe a big bloody forest as well? We got rid most of it, built wealthy economies in its place, and then we started telling the rest of the world to stay poor and undeveloped otherwise they endanger our lives of comfort and luxury.

Europe didn't have rainforests, silly.

We had more than enough natural forests and vegetation, marshes etc we got rid of so we could prosper.

Rainforests are the Earth's lungs. It's in the name. Rain. Forest.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 27, 2021, 08:23:40 AM
I'd add that plastic is one of those.

There's an amazing piece of analysis by Our World in Data that in terms of plastic waste in the oceans it seems that under 1% comes from Europe - about 5% comes from North America. Over 80% comes from Asia. In part no doubt that's because of individual actions like recycling and no-one wanting plastic straws. But I think that part of it is actually that there are market and regulatory pressures that are forcing a change away from plastic in Europe and North America - while in Asia there's less and many countries (especially South-East Asia) are poorer and less able to make/enforce changes in regulations and I'd bet that 90% of that plastic trash is coming from Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever etc. It's cheap and it's reliable.

I think it's another thing where the big control is in the hands of companies and they need to be forced to change it by the state. And of course plastic isn't just waste, it has a huge carbon footprint.

In my experience 99% of 3rd world trash is plastic bags.

Yeah plastic bags are a big problem. It's why Rwanda and I think some other African countries now have banned them.

Quote


Europe didn't have rainforests, silly.

Akchualllyyyyyy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_rainforest

Quote from: Tamas on July 27, 2021, 11:04:11 AM
Yeah the rainforest thing is one thing that always irked me. I mean obviously they should be preserved, but wasn't much of Europe a big bloody forest as well? We got rid most of it, built wealthy economies in its place, and then we started telling the rest of the world to stay poor and undeveloped otherwise they endanger our lives of comfort and luxury.

You see this excuse a lot but the problem with it is when Europe did this we were a lot less informed about the negative effects it would have. There was little conception that cutting down the forests might have a lasting impact.

Additionally nations looking to develop today have far more options than in the 19th century. Slashing down the forests for mineral extraction is neither the only nor necessarily best way to go.

Quote from: Berkut on July 27, 2021, 12:44:03 AM

Quote from: Syt on July 27, 2021, 12:30:57 AM
Btw, carbon emissions by source in the EU in 2019:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/999398/carbon-dioxide-emissions-sources-european-union-eu/

(https://i.postimg.cc/D0v6xs1X/ces.jpg)

You have to go after the big items in order to effect real change.

Focusing on the small stuff, IMO, is almost Machiavellian in that it is a way to distract from the actual problems and their solutions.

Now, part of tackling things like road transportation and electricity and heat production is getting people who consume those things to change their behaviors. But that isn't going to happen in any way that can actuallly make a difference by just asking people to change. Some will, but most will not, and even those who do change won't do so enough.

No, you have to change their incentives. Charge a hell of a lot more for gas, and invest more in better alternatives. The consumption of energy....well, that is probably just not possible to reduce in any real way. I mean, I doubt it has EVER happened in all of human history. Humans are going to keep consuming more and more and more energy. The trick there isn't to reduce energy consumption, but to produce energy more cleanly. Which means embracing nuclear.

I agree that the fundament economics need to change - and fast.  Really the only effective way of doing that on the time limit we are working with is the imposition of carbon taxes.

I don't think nuclear is the answer now.  It was a possible answer 20-30 years ago but it takes to long to build those plants and we simply don't have enough time left before we hit 1.5C and then 2C increase in warming.

Regarding the general discussion of plastics and recycling generally.  Mongers nailed it, it is a good way to reduce local landfill capacity problems, but it in no way addresses climate change.  It does not even address the problem of plummeting fish populations.  That is a problem of overfishing and warming.  Recycling programs may, in hindsight, actually be harmful as they fool people into thinking they are doing there part.  If people really want to play their part they need to exert pressure on politicians to make the necessary systemic changes.

As to your question Mongers - I started doing most of what I can do on an individual basis over 5 years ago - hell I even went vegan.  And if we all reduce our meat consumption and use electric where clean electric is available then that will make some small difference but not even close to what we need to achieve to stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.   At the risk of repeating myself, we need government action on a large scale to regulate and tax away the economic incentive to produce those emissions.

Still a few temperate rainforests in the UK.

And on Europe I think re-planting forests is a big thing governments have committed to. Of course that's unlikely to offset the fact that the Amazon is now a net emitter of carbon which is alarming - and once temperatures are locked in and the Siberian permafrost melts there's a huge amount of trapped methane that will be released locking in further change. And I don't think it's right to say that the developing world doesn't care about climate or that burning down forests is uncontroversial it's a huge political issue in Brazil - trouble is the side in office at the minute is like the GOP they don't believe in climate change and they've ripped up masses of legislation that tried to protect the Amazon.

Quote from: Tyr on July 27, 2021, 11:16:27 AM

Yeah plastic bags are a big problem. It's why Rwanda and I think some other African countries now have banned them.

Quote


Europe didn't have rainforests, silly.

Akchualllyyyyyy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_rainforest

Quote from: Tamas on July 27, 2021, 11:04:11 AM
Yeah the rainforest thing is one thing that always irked me. I mean obviously they should be preserved, but wasn't much of Europe a big bloody forest as well? We got rid most of it, built wealthy economies in its place, and then we started telling the rest of the world to stay poor and undeveloped otherwise they endanger our lives of comfort and luxury.

You see this excuse a lot but the problem with it is when Europe did this we were a lot less informed about the negative effects it would have. There was little conception that cutting down the forests might have a lasting impact.

Additionally nations looking to develop today have far more options than in the 19th century. Slashing down the forests for mineral extraction is neither the only nor necessarily best way to go.

Mineral extraction is in fact necessary to sustain the green technologies - and especially the battery capacity that underpins the whole thing.

Quote from: Tyr on July 27, 2021, 11:16:27 AM

Quote
Europe didn't have rainforests, silly.

Akchualllyyyyyy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_rainforest

Sigh.

Quote from: Tyr on July 27, 2021, 11:16:27 AM
You see this excuse a lot but the problem with it is when Europe did this we were a lot less informed about the negative effects it would have. There was little conception that cutting down the forests might have a lasting impact.

Additionally nations looking to develop today have far more options than in the 19th century. Slashing down the forests for mineral extraction is neither the only nor necessarily best way to go.

Fair enough yet we don't look keen to move to favellas and let our golf courses and mines be taken back by nature.

Didn't the deforestation of the Mediterranean in ancient times massively increase erosion and decrease soil quality and mess up local climates?

Quote from: Tamas on July 27, 2021, 11:46:02 AM

Quote from: Tyr on July 27, 2021, 11:16:27 AM
You see this excuse a lot but the problem with it is when Europe did this we were a lot less informed about the negative effects it would have. There was little conception that cutting down the forests might have a lasting impact.

Additionally nations looking to develop today have far more options than in the 19th century. Slashing down the forests for mineral extraction is neither the only nor necessarily best way to go.

Fair enough yet we don't look keen to move to favellas and let our golf courses and mines be taken back by nature.

If a party promises to transform golf courses into nature parks they've just gained 10% with me :p

Quote from: Tyr on July 27, 2021, 01:14:20 PM
If a party promises to transform golf courses into nature parks they've just gained 10% with me :p

I'm more for concreting them over into social housing for the young but that's just me :P

Quote from: Syt on July 27, 2021, 12:11:18 PM
Didn't the deforestation of the Mediterranean in ancient times massively increase erosion and decrease soil quality and mess up local climates?

Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor and not an ancient ecohistorian!

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 27, 2021, 01:16:26 PM

Quote from: Tyr on July 27, 2021, 01:14:20 PM
If a party promises to transform golf courses into nature parks they've just gained 10% with me :p

I'm more for concreting them over into social housing for the young but that's just me :P

He is a homeowner now, every new home built on the island decreases his net worth :p

My concern with using them for housing is more that they tend to be in fringe locations accessible only by car. Precisely the sort of place we shouldn't be building houses.
For housing we should be looking to develop villages with their own train station into new towns. And of course in cities developing brown field with new transport alongside the housing.

Quote from: Tyr on July 27, 2021, 03:40:43 PM
My concern with using them for housing is more that they tend to be in fringe locations accessible only by car. Precisely the sort of place we shouldn't be building houses.
For housing we should be looking to develop villages with their own train station into new towns. And of course in cities developing brown field with new transport alongside the housing.

I just want to provoke the most rage in the golfers - so sure :lol:

golf course create nice large space for the creation of transportation hubs and housing, plus if done right you get all those electric carts to help people move around.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2021, 04:02:49 PM
golf course create nice large space for the creation of transportation hubs and housing, plus if done right you get all those electric carts to help people move around.

CC, we don't really have the room here for those sorts of developments.

Quote from: mongers on July 29, 2021, 07:30:11 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2021, 04:02:49 PM
golf course create nice large space for the creation of transportation hubs and housing, plus if done right you get all those electric carts to help people move around.

CC, we don't really have the room here for those sorts of developments.

True, everything is full with ill-kept so called green belts and abandoned factories. Can't touch those.

A new independent climate change advisory group has been launched in the UK by some 'big names' in the scientific community:

https://www.climaterepair.eng.cam.ac.uk/climate-crisis-advisory-group (https://www.climaterepair.eng.cam.ac.uk/climate-crisis-advisory-group)

Quote
The Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG) was created in response to the climate crisis, as a new advisory group to help inform the public, governments and financial institutions providing them with the most comprehensive science, and more crucially, guiding them towards action for climate repair.

They seem to reason that the Arctic is now at, or past a tipping point and so we need to be geo-engineering the climate there, now. And so help to buy us some time whilst we reduce greenhouse emissions.

Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2021, 07:32:24 AM

Quote from: mongers on July 29, 2021, 07:30:11 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2021, 04:02:49 PM
golf course create nice large space for the creation of transportation hubs and housing, plus if done right you get all those electric carts to help people move around.

CC, we don't really have the room here for those sorts of developments.

True, everything is full with ill-kept so called green belts and abandoned factories. Can't touch those.

Technically a lot of gold courses are green belt.

(https://i.imgur.com/AHpkgrf.jpg)

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2021, 07:41:49 AM

Quote from: Tamas on July 29, 2021, 07:32:24 AM

Quote from: mongers on July 29, 2021, 07:30:11 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2021, 04:02:49 PM
golf course create nice large space for the creation of transportation hubs and housing, plus if done right you get all those electric carts to help people move around.

CC, we don't really have the room here for those sorts of developments.

True, everything is full with ill-kept so called green belts and abandoned factories. Can't touch those.

Technically a lot of gold courses are green belt.

They are lifeless toxic wastelands that just happen to be green.

Quote from: Zoupa on July 29, 2021, 10:21:10 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/AHpkgrf.jpg)

Exactly. The solution has almost nothing to do with consumers being better people (and to the extent it does, they won't be convinced by moralistic platitudes or guilt - just by changing their incentives) and everything to do with forcing businesses to start paying the external costs of producing climate damaging products.

Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2021, 11:04:35 AM

Exactly. The solution has almost nothing to do with consumers being better people (and to the extent it does, they won't be convinced by moralistic platitudes or guilt - just by changing their incentives) and everything to do with forcing businesses to start paying the external costs of producing climate damaging products.

So you're just waiting for the right incentives before you change your behaviour with regard to the climate and environment? :unsure:

Quote from: mongers on July 29, 2021, 11:11:54 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2021, 11:04:35 AM

Exactly. The solution has almost nothing to do with consumers being better people (and to the extent it does, they won't be convinced by moralistic platitudes or guilt - just by changing their incentives) and everything to do with forcing businesses to start paying the external costs of producing climate damaging products.

So you're just waiting for the right incentives before you change your behaviour with regard to the climate and environment? :unsure:

That is not what he is saying.  He is talking about the economic incentives for the corporations that produce the vast majority of emissions. And he is right.  Without taxes and regulations that factor in the cost, we are going to cook.

I agree that the first order impact of people change their individual consumption habits are trivial compared against the impact of large scale corporate and governmental decisions.

However, I think the second order impact is potentially much larger. Because if enough people are cutting their meat to 30%, foregoing their car rides, and otherwise engaging in dreary "virtue signalling" then that is going to contribute to increasing the weight of expectations - and the potential political impact. And that in turn is pretty much the only way that the needle is going to move on corporate and governmental decisions.

If we had a few decades to change I would agree with you Jacob.  But we missed that chance decades ago.  We need rapid change now.  Not through the choices of individual consumers but through direct political action.

edit: while I might be able to feel good about the changes I have made as an individual consumer, it has not changed things on a macro scale one bit.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 29, 2021, 11:19:30 AM
If we had a few decades to change I would agree with you Jacob.  But we missed that chance decades ago.  We need rapid change now.  Not through the choices of individual consumers but through direct political action.

I don't think we're disagreeing though?

Quote from: Jacob on July 29, 2021, 11:22:14 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 29, 2021, 11:19:30 AM
If we had a few decades to change I would agree with you Jacob.  But we missed that chance decades ago.  We need rapid change now.  Not through the choices of individual consumers but through direct political action.

I don't think we're disagreeing though?

We are to this extent - I think there is a danger that people will wrongly think they are doing their part by cutting meat consumption etc.  But what we really need them to do is get involved politically.  Electric cars in this context becomes the opiate of the people, some small changes that government can point to without making the structural changes we really need.

Be careful what you wish for. In Sweden people got involved politically decades ago. The results are still hurting our climate efforts.

Quote from: The Brain on July 29, 2021, 12:05:24 PM
Be careful what you wish for. In Sweden people got involved politically decades ago. The results are still hurting our climate efforts.

The risks associated with the status quo are far worse.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 29, 2021, 12:11:58 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 29, 2021, 12:05:24 PM
Be careful what you wish for. In Sweden people got involved politically decades ago. The results are still hurting our climate efforts.

The risks associated with the status quo are far worse.

Fair enough.

Quote from: mongers on July 29, 2021, 11:11:54 AM

Quote from: Berkut on July 29, 2021, 11:04:35 AM

Exactly. The solution has almost nothing to do with consumers being better people (and to the extent it does, they won't be convinced by moralistic platitudes or guilt - just by changing their incentives) and everything to do with forcing businesses to start paying the external costs of producing climate damaging products.

So you're just waiting for the right incentives before you change your behaviour with regard to the climate and environment? :unsure:

I have no illusions that what works to convince me of anything has much relevance to how to go about convincing a couple billion other people how to act.

Quote from: Jacob on July 29, 2021, 11:16:52 AM
I agree that the first order impact of people change their individual consumption habits are trivial compared against the impact of large scale corporate and governmental decisions.

However, I think the second order impact is potentially much larger. Because if enough people are cutting their meat to 30%, foregoing their car rides, and otherwise engaging in dreary "virtue signalling" then that is going to contribute to increasing the weight of expectations - and the potential political impact. And that in turn is pretty much the only way that the needle is going to move on corporate and governmental decisions.

It's an interesting balancing act.

I agree that the second order impacts are real.

But there is a danger in also making people think their first order, marginal efforts are "enough", and they are "doing their part".

The entire straws in the ocean thing is a great example.

I am doing my part by pressuring local businesses to switch away from plastic straws! I saw that poor turtle with the straw in its nose! I am making a difference!

And if you remove 100% of all plastic straw waste from the planet, that makes no fucking difference whatsoever, and companies are still creating 270 million tons of plastic waste every year, and that number continues to grow every single year.

But don't worry, why, its the very companies that produce plastic that sponsor and promote the *consumer* centric plastic recycling programs....

Something being forgotten is if half the population are breaking their backs to recycle, cut meat, etc... Then this sends a powerful message to politicians and corporations and will incentivise much bigger changes than the action itself.

Eg we had a thread not too long ago on nestle and their efforts to pivot to being a health company. Something I can say from the inside they're really keen on. They saw the writing on the wall and just chasing profits went this way.

I often see on TV these days the big oil companies advertising is focused around their environmental investments. BP in particular seems to be pushing that hard.

Edit-ah. Jacob said as much. Only half the thread loaded.

Quote from: Zoupa on July 29, 2021, 10:21:10 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/AHpkgrf.jpg)

This blame game is silly.  It's just as true to say that end consumers are responsible for 100% of emissions.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2021, 01:23:01 PM
This blame game is silly.  It's just as true to say that end consumers are responsible for 100% of emissions.

It is not silly at all. It identifies where the relevant decision-making sits and where the appropriate regulatory and legislative pressure can most effectively be applied.

Quote from: Jacob on July 29, 2021, 01:27:16 PM
It is not silly at all. It identifies where the relevant decision-making sits and where the appropriate regulatory and legislative pressure can most effectively be applied.

Where does the relevant decision making sit for what kind of car you drive, how much you travel by plane, how energy efficient you home is, etc., etc?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2021, 01:44:49 PM
Where does the relevant decision making sit for what kind of car you drive, how much you travel by plane, how energy efficient you home is, etc., etc?

Primarily with whoever is writing and enforcing the regulations for carbon pricing, car standards, requirements and standards for airplane manufacturing and travel, home energy efficiency, and so on.

The top 100 producers of CO2

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwdFaSxWwAAOqxl?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)

Quote from: Jacob on July 29, 2021, 02:34:41 PM
Primarily with whoever is writing and enforcing the regulations for carbon pricing, car standards, requirements and standards for airplane manufacturing and travel, home energy efficiency, and so on.

Those things can change my incentives and limit my options,, but none of those make my consumption decisions for me.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2021, 03:14:04 PM
Those things can change my incentives and limit my options,, but none of those make my consumption decisions for me.

This conversation has mostly been about how individual consumption decisions are going to be insufficient, about how more structural changes - which includes changing incentives and limiting options - are required.

So... yes.

Quote from: Jacob on July 29, 2021, 03:44:43 PM
This conversation has mostly been about how individual consumption decisions are going to be insufficient, about how more structural changes - which includes changing incentives and limiting options - are required.

So... yes.

But they are not required.  If every single person changed their consumption pattern as if there were a whopping carbon tax in place, it would have the exact same effect as a carbon tax. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2021, 03:59:00 PM
But they are not required.  If every single person changed their consumption pattern as if there were a whopping carbon tax in place, it would have the exact same effect as a carbon tax.

Cool.

It seems most people who've posted in this thread so far are arguing that that's not going to work given the timelines.

Just go nuclear. Problem solved.

Quote from: Jacob on July 29, 2021, 02:35:19 PM
The top 100 producers of CO2

So power companies, mining companies, and transport all in big countries. I'm not sure what this tells us.  Sure if Indian and China stopped generating electricity nationwide CO2 emissions would go way down.  American Airlines is on the list but not Rinkydink National Airlines that carries 52 passengers a year.  Not because American is so uniquely polluting but because it is big.

Quote from: Jacob on July 29, 2021, 04:06:02 PM
Cool.

It seems most people who've posted in this thread so far are arguing that that's not going to work given the timelines.

I agree with them.

But that's not what I've been arguing about.  I took exception to that tweet from the CNN dude about who is responsible for emissions.

A square in central Vienna is getting redone. Who needs shades, trees, etc?

(https://external-preview.redd.it/06tS-UjTkSW9tA-sJ4ywvYaxdSQaDukE5nb_mlaxcRk.jpg?auto=webp&s=33a427652ce89d55df5c73c26314074b9a5be6e5)

(This kind of shit is way too common in Vienna.)

Weird. In most places the trend is to do away with this mid 20th century mess and go back to something classic.

Quote from: Tyr on July 30, 2021, 09:01:22 AM
Weird. In most places the trend is to do away with this mid 20th century mess and go back to something classic.

At the same time they pay lip service to adding greenery in some places.

Mariahilfer Straße, the main shopping street, had trees added when it was redone a few years ago. The trees now form a canopy over much of the street, which is nice (denser now than in the pictures below). However, even these trees are basically cemented in up to the trunk.

(https://vienna-solutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CF1_9563-scaled.jpg)

(https://oekastatic.orf.at/mims/2020/12/22/crops/w=1280,q=90/505943_bigpicture_170522_a72.jpg?s=f29ce04e343b4aaacd11b254f35dace7c184a6a8)

EDIT: Replaced the second picture since it was very out of date with a more recent one that shows the trees better. It looks like they're in dirt, but it's really concrete.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 29, 2021, 04:16:56 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 29, 2021, 04:06:02 PM
Cool.

It seems most people who've posted in this thread so far are arguing that that's not going to work given the timelines.

I agree with them.

But that's not what I've been arguing about.  I took exception to that tweet from the CNN dude about who is responsible for emissions.

Rampant capitalism is responsible. Companies are more responsible for that than consumers.

Quote from: Tamas on July 27, 2021, 11:04:11 AM
Yeah the rainforest thing is one thing that always irked me. I mean obviously they should be preserved, but wasn't much of Europe a big bloody forest as well? We got rid most of it, built wealthy economies in its place, and then we started telling the rest of the world to stay poor and undeveloped otherwise they endanger our lives of comfort and luxury.

Yeah but Europe has been reforesting since 1900, few other continents have MORE forests than they did 100 years ago. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/

But joke is on Europe since all those forests catch on fire all the time now apparently.

Why do the baking potatoes I had a couple of days ago need to have come from either the UK, France, Israel or Egypt? :bleeding:

The things are after all 75% water, do they really need to be imported across all of Europe and the Mediterranean sea?

What would be the carbon foot print of that?

Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2021, 06:57:13 AM
What would be the carbon foot print of that?

Miniscule.

Quote from: Threviel on November 05, 2021, 06:57:51 AM

Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2021, 06:57:13 AM
What would be the carbon foot print of that?

Miniscule.

Really, as compared to getting them from a local farmer?

Just imagine if I bought a 1kg of these potatoes a week, I wouldn't because I don't like them, but over a year that would add up to a whole 50Kg sack.

You don't like potatoes?

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2021, 07:19:23 AM
You don't like potatoes?

These were the first I'd eaten in several years, turns out no I don't like them.

That's probably largely due to them not being nutritious enough for me, as right after finishing them I had eat what was at hand, eight shortcake butter biscuits to make up for the still hungry feeling.  :D

Which caused me to look up the nutrition details and so find out they might have come from Egypt/Israel.

I remember many many years ago complaining about this same thing on languish. I remember a few people failing to get why it was an issue.

There was some stat of the UK exporting x tonnes of potatoes to Germany and importing around x tonnes of potatoes from Germany.

Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2021, 07:06:48 AM
Really, as compared to getting them from a local farmer?

Just imagine if I bought a 1kg of these potatoes a week, I wouldn't because I don't like them, but over a year that would add up to a whole 50Kg sack.

Not sure about potatoes but I remember reading about how counter-intuitive lots of the food miles points were - so it is far more carbon intensive to have those huge, heated artificial environments for growing tomatoes in East Anglia and the Netherlands than to fly them from somewhere warm.

But this links to one of the many bees in my bonnet. The UK competition regulator forces supermarkets to have standard national prices - they consider differential pricing as anti-competitive and harmful to consumers. This means that UK supermarkets are pretty homogenous but they also basically only have an interest in large producers who can commit to volume and pricing. It's not the case in, say, France or Spain which is why you see more local produce because the best/cheapest deals if you allow differential pricing is often local. It's probably environmentally best too as well as making for more interesting/diverse supermarket shopping because youo get slightly different offers in different bits of the country.

I think it's probably fair to have some rules for the remote areas like the Western Isles though.

How about something like you get to go tax free/massively reduced tax for selling stuff from within 20km of a particular branch? - maybe increase that out to 50km in more rural areas.
I can see the advantages and disadvantages of both sides of national standardisation. I do worry it wouldn't just be the Highlands to suffer. Already with the shortages stuff at the moment there are reports of places with higher density (shops and people) getting more deliveries and fewer empty shelves than the country.

Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2021, 07:37:26 AM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2021, 07:19:23 AM
You don't like potatoes?

These were the first I'd eaten in several years, turns out no I don't like them.

That's probably largely due to them not being nutritious enough for me, as right after finishing them I had eat what was at hand, eight shortcake butter biscuits to make up for the still hungry feeling.  :D

Which caused me to look up the nutrition details and so find out they might have come from Egypt/Israel.

That is odd, one of the things potatoes do is make you feel full because of all the fibre - perhaps it was the way you prepared them? Its a bit of a mystery.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2021, 11:16:43 AM

Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2021, 07:37:26 AM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2021, 07:19:23 AM
You don't like potatoes?

These were the first I'd eaten in several years, turns out no I don't like them.

That's probably largely due to them not being nutritious enough for me, as right after finishing them I had eat what was at hand, eight shortcake butter biscuits to make up for the still hungry feeling.  :D

Which caused me to look up the nutrition details and so find out they might have come from Egypt/Israel.

That is odd, one of the things potatoes do is make you feel full because of all the fibre - perhaps it was the way you prepared them? Its a bit of a mystery.

Trust me CC, I get plenty of fibre in my diet, an daily average of about 28g, which probably puts me in top decile for consumption of it.

I think in my case it's not a matterof feeling full, as I'm not sure I'm ever that, more that my body knows there's isn't enough protein/carbs etc in it.

Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2021, 11:40:33 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2021, 11:16:43 AM

Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2021, 07:37:26 AM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 05, 2021, 07:19:23 AM
You don't like potatoes?

These were the first I'd eaten in several years, turns out no I don't like them.

That's probably largely due to them not being nutritious enough for me, as right after finishing them I had eat what was at hand, eight shortcake butter biscuits to make up for the still hungry feeling.  :D

Which caused me to look up the nutrition details and so find out they might have come from Egypt/Israel.

That is odd, one of the things potatoes do is make you feel full because of all the fibre - perhaps it was the way you prepared them? Its a bit of a mystery.

Trust me CC, I get plenty of fibre in my diet, an daily average of about 28g, which probably puts me in top decile for consumption of it.

I think in my case it's not a matterof feeling full, as I'm not sure I'm ever that, more that my body knows there's isn't enough protein/carbs etc in it.

That is probably it then, since you already get a lot of fibre, the only thing the potatoes are really adding is calories.

That's why a baked potato needs butter, cheese, sour cream, gravy, onion, garlic, a steak, a side salad, and maybe some pie.

Quote from: PDH on November 05, 2021, 11:56:00 AM
That's why a baked potato needs butter, cheese, sour cream, gravy, onion, garlic, a steak, a side salad, and maybe some pie.

:lol:

:blink:
It started sane and steadily got madder and madder.

Eh, baked potato and salad are pretty common sides at steak restaurants.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 05, 2021, 08:12:38 AM
But this links to one of the many bees in my bonnet. The UK competition regulator forces supermarkets to have standard national prices - they consider differential pricing as anti-competitive and harmful to consumers. This means that UK supermarkets are pretty homogenous but they also basically only have an interest in large producers who can commit to volume and pricing. It's not the case in, say, France or Spain which is why you see more local produce because the best/cheapest deals if you allow differential pricing is often local. It's probably environmentally best too as well as making for more interesting/diverse supermarket shopping because youo get slightly different offers in different bits of the country.

:wacko:  That's about as backward as you can get.

Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2021, 07:06:48 AM

Quote from: Threviel on November 05, 2021, 06:57:51 AM

Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2021, 06:57:13 AM
What would be the carbon foot print of that?

Miniscule.

Really, as compared to getting them from a local farmer?

In general when it comes to foodstuffs the production part is by far the greatest part of the environmental impact. Transport is very often in the low single percents of the impact and most of that is from the transport home from the local transport hub. Meaning the transport to the shop and then home from the shop. Which does not change whether the produce is produced in England or Bulgaria, it all gathers in the regional Lidl transport hub and then out to the local Lidl stores.

There are of course exceptions, but in general it's better to produce food where the environmental impact is lowest (often meaning where it's most efficient to grow said food) and then transport it to where it's eaten.

So I can very much believe that the organically grown produce in England is far worse for the environment than the industrially mass produced produce from Bulgaria or New Zealand for that matter. Most obvious are of course tomatoes grown in gas-heated greenhouses in the Netherlands when it could probably have been flown in from Africa for a lesser carbon footprint. But the same is true, only often in less obvious ways for almost all food.

Any way, potatoes might actually be better to grow in England, but even so, since the transport impact is more or less negligible the question you asked is asked wrongly. You should have asked yourself what the carbon footprint from the production is, not what the carbon footprint from the transport is.

That there's such a high focus on transport is probably that it is very visible. Every time we go in a car we're surrounded by lorrys transporting food, and thus it feels like it is very important. And since most of the environmental organizations focuses on what feels important rather than on what is important the focus is on transport.

I've no idea whether that's true. Let's just assume it is.
The thing is though just not growing food isn't an option. That's emissions that we can't cut no matter what.
Being more logical with where we do things, transport is an area we can cut emissions.

Quote from: Tyr on November 06, 2021, 05:03:21 AM
I've no idea whether that's true.

Then find out, it's not difficult.

But of course, it's far easier to just blame transport and the you don't have to think about it... Because that feels right.

Quote from: Tyr on November 06, 2021, 05:03:21 AM
I've no idea whether that's true. Let's just assume it is.
The thing is though just not growing food isn't an option. That's emissions that we can't cut no matter what.
Being more logical with where we do things, transport is an area we can cut emissions.

That's a fair point.

Quote from: Threviel on November 06, 2021, 04:37:41 AM

Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2021, 07:06:48 AM

Quote from: Threviel on November 05, 2021, 06:57:51 AM

Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2021, 06:57:13 AM
What would be the carbon foot print of that?

Miniscule.

Really, as compared to getting them from a local farmer?

In general when it comes to foodstuffs the production part is by far the greatest part of the environmental impact. Transport is very often in the low single percents of the impact and most of that is from the transport home from the local transport hub. Meaning the transport to the shop and then home from the shop. Which does not change whether the produce is produced in England or Bulgaria, it all gathers in the regional Lidl transport hub and then out to the local Lidl stores.

There are of course exceptions, but in general it's better to produce food where the environmental impact is lowest (often meaning where it's most efficient to grow said food) and then transport it to where it's eaten.

So I can very much believe that the organically grown produce in England is far worse for the environment than the industrially mass produced produce from Bulgaria or New Zealand for that matter. Most obvious are of course tomatoes grown in gas-heated greenhouses in the Netherlands when it could probably have been flown in from Africa for a lesser carbon footprint. But the same is true, only often in less obvious ways for almost all food.

Any way, potatoes might actually be better to grow in England, but even so, since the transport impact is more or less negligible the question you asked is asked wrongly. You should have asked yourself what the carbon footprint from the production is, not what the carbon footprint from the transport is.

That there's such a high focus on transport is probably that it is very visible. Every time we go in a car we're surrounded by lorrys transporting food, and thus it feels like it is very important. And since most of the environmental organizations focuses on what feels important rather than on what is important the focus is on transport.

You make some fair point and as Shelf above also mentioned the tomatoes grown in hothouses is a bad example of intensive energy use.
And I'm not ignoring production carbon impacts, but with potatoes is fairly straight forward, they grown in the ground outside and require quite a lot of water. So not only are there additional transport costs but another important consideration is the extra water use in Egypt and Israel need to grown them, I imagine that's largely irrigated water and both country's populations are facing considerable water resource challenges.

Also we can't assume it's a perfect market, as Shelf pointed out supermarkets operate in all sort of odd ways, it may well be on that particular English producers don't much competitively priced potatoes so the contract goes to an Egyptian enterprise, next week/month the English market price might be back to normal. I doubt most supermarkets take environmental impacts or carbon footprints into consideration when making their buying decisions.

Potatoes, being of high Andean origin are probably quite well suited to being grown in England and spectacularly bad to grow in the Middle East.

I would suggest buying potatoes from areas where they are well suited for growing so that other areas can focus on what grows well there. Which has very little with transport to do.

If transport is so overwhelmingly important we should strive for every area in the world becoming self sufficient in every foodstuff. 1/10 second of thinking about that should tell one to focus on other things than transport.

Of course transport shouldn't be ignored either, every little thing helps and it is all very complex and full of grey zones.

Quote from: Threviel on November 06, 2021, 07:10:59 AM

Quote from: Tyr on November 06, 2021, 05:03:21 AM
I've no idea whether that's true.

Then find out, it's not difficult.

But of course, it's far easier to just blame transport and the you don't have to think about it... Because that feels right.

Wow. Way to completely miss the point. Did you even read the next sentence where I said let's just assume it all is?

I wouldn't agree this is an easy thing to find out BTW. Source?

Quote from: Tyr on November 06, 2021, 08:50:02 AM
Wow. Way to completely miss the point. Did you even read the next sentence where I said let's just assume it all is?

I wouldn't agree this is an easy thing to find out BTW. Source?

Sure, here's the first result of my google search for "carbon footprint of food"

https://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet (https://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet)

Let me quote it: "Food accounts for 10-30% of a household's carbon footprint, typically a higher portion in lower-income households.2 Production accounts for 68% of food emissions, while transportation accounts for 5%."

I'm also  interested in your idea that nothing at all can be done about the production part of emissions. Would you care to give me some sources for your quite revolutionary thinking? Or would you rather that I continue to  politely ignore it?

You're still missing the point.
It doesn't matter if transport is 5 or 90% of the emissions. If there is an opportunity to cut these emissions we should take it.
The same goes for production too of course but the two aren't necessary related or mutually exclusionary.

Quote from: Tyr on November 06, 2021, 09:25:02 AM
You're still missing the point.
It doesn't matter if transport is 5 or 90% of the emissions. If there is an opportunity to cut these emissions we should take it.
The same goes for production too of course but the two aren't necessary related or mutually exclusionary.

Yes, you are quite correct and I believe I addressed it in a post above. But the almost singular focus on transport that many have is a problem. Sure, we can do solar driven transport and halve the emissions from transport or whatever, that will decrease total emissions by 2.5%. It's almost unimportant compared to almost most other efforts that could be made.

Transport emissions is not the big problem, production emissions are 13 times higher when it comes to food. The focus of environmentalists should be on that part if they want to make a huge difference. Thus mongers asked the wrong question, since production is at least 13 times more important than transport.

And when it comes to mutually exclusionary I beg to differ. Lots of dimwits go about buying locally and talking about how it must be better since there's less transport. It's a very convenient way of making them feel good whilst in real terms it's probably many times worse for the environment compared to industrial large scale products from a  better location. That way they don't have to address the real problems.

Thinking about trying to speak to my pension company and see if I can move my funds to sustainable investments - and if there's other "social" choices I can make, for example, I'm very uncomfortable with any investments in gambling companies.

As someone who's spent my entire life just ignoring what's happening to my pension savings I'm slightly concerned I'll actually have to engage brain and work out what funds I'm interested in :bleeding: :weep:

Quote from: Threviel on November 06, 2021, 09:37:41 AM

Quote from: Tyr on November 06, 2021, 09:25:02 AM
You're still missing the point.
It doesn't matter if transport is 5 or 90% of the emissions. If there is an opportunity to cut these emissions we should take it.
The same goes for production too of course but the two aren't necessary related or mutually exclusionary.

Yes, you are quite correct and I believe I addressed it in a post above. But the almost singular focus on transport that many have is a problem. Sure, we can do solar driven transport and halve the emissions from transport or whatever, that will decrease total emissions by 2.5%. It's almost unimportant compared to almost most other efforts that could be made.

Transport emissions is not the big problem, production emissions are 13 times higher when it comes to food. The focus of environmentalists should be on that part if they want to make a huge difference. Thus mongers asked the wrong question, since production is at least 13 times more important than transport.

And when it comes to mutually exclusionary I beg to differ. Lots of dimwits go about buying locally and talking about how it must be better since there's less transport. It's a very convenient way of making them feel good whilst in real terms it's probably many times worse for the environment compared to industrial large scale products from a  better location. That way they don't have to address the real problems.

That's a really good point, and something I didn't really realize until now.

The next question is the degree to which carbon footprint varies with physical location. It could very well be true that more economically efficient production is also more efficient in terms of C02, but I'd prefer to see the data on that. It could well be, for example, economically efficient production relies on more mechanization (burning fuel) and intensive fertilization (which also is fairly C02 intensive, I believe). That, of course, is potentially be mitigated by scale, but I'd be interested in seeing an accounting.

This might be helpful:
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

It's really counter-intuitive because shipping food from Kenya, say, seems so obviously bad from a carbon perspective but there are so many other factors that focus on food miles is probably not actually that helpful.

Edit: And, incidentally it's one of the reasons I'm dubious about the "personal" responsibility/response to climate rather than collective action through governments and regulations.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2021, 11:20:37 AM
This might be helpful:
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

It's really counter-intuitive because shipping food from Kenya, say, seems so obviously bad from a carbon perspective but there are so many other factors that focus on food miles is probably not actually that helpful.

Edit: And, incidentally it's one of the reasons I'm dubious about the "personal" responsibility/response to climate rather than collective action through governments and regulations.

It's not an either/or choice, it can be both.

But because of the complexity of the systems of production and distribution we're talking about, I think it's relatively possible that individual choices are actually counter-productive in terms of reducing their carbon footprint.

Plus I always go back to the fact that "carbon footprint" was a marketing concept invented by BP to focus on our individual sins rather than social change of individuals working together through states or protest movements and pressure companies like, say, BP.

The thing to do when it comes to environmental impact is to go borderline vegan. Animal proteins needs to go way way way down and vegetabilic food needs to be produced more efficiently with a smaller environmental footprint per produced calorie. We are on the road to ten billion earthlings and to feed all of us this needs to be done. On the other side of the population hump our childrens childrens children can go back to carnivoring.

So the answer is more efficient large scale industrial production using science to the max to lessen the environmental impact, the more or less exact opposite of organic small scale locally produced food.

You're probably right, but I'm pretty sure that the tomatoes I grow in my backyard - or the chickens if I ever get some - are going to be really low in terms of carbon impact.

... not that it'll make up for flying to different places if I ever take up travelling again, of course.

... this kind of touches on a topic I've been mulling over, on importance of "virtue signalling."

I know, of course, that the term currently is weaponized as "useless symbolic activity to make you feel good about yourself" to dismiss all kinds of things  - including things that are neither useless, purely symbolic, nor undertaken to make someone feel good about themselves. But I'm actually talking about the things we can potentially agree on being just that, essentially ineffective and done for how it makes your feel. At this point I'm pretty convinced that such actions can serve an important and useful function.

It's right there in the phrase, actually. Those actions have a signalling function. If enough people signal that they care about whatever virtue it is they're signalling, that makes actual effective political action more achievable. The argument "so many of us have made these inconvenient changes in our lives to improve [issue], let's keep going and support [actual effective political action that may be inconvenient to an influential industry]" is reasonably persuasive I think. It makes things more personal.

Secondly, effective action is sometimes preceded by ineffectual action. Take organic milk, for example. Maybe it's basically pointless... the milk may be no better than regular milk, the cows no happier, the carbon footprint no better, and so on. But the market demand has created some infrastructure and economic incentives that can then potentially be tweaked at lower risk to move towards actual positive outcomes - maybe there's away to tighten standards around the labelling that actually makes for better quality milk/ happier cows/ lower carbon, and if so it's just a matter of doing that rather than building production, distribution, and marketing infrastructure from scratch.

Thirdly, if people really are getting a little hit of satisfaction from signalling their virtue doing ineffective stuff, they'll likely be very amenable to shift towards doing effective things at such a time as effective actions are available. You have to keep chasing that hit of self-satisfaction, and it's only going to be higher if you know it's actually really effective (especially compared to those idiots who'e doing the ineffective stuff, lol).

So yeah... don't be overly harsh on "virtue signalling" if it's well intentioned. You may be undermining vectors of actual effective, positive change.

As an aside, Threviel, around here "buying local" is more about supporting smaller and local operators, about the supposed flavours of the local terroir, and about feeling a connection to the local land and community. I don't think I've come across anyone articulating "lower carbon foot-print" as a significant motivation or point of marketing.

I think virtue signaling is only a problem when you either try to draw attention to what a great person you are, or nag other people about it.

Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2021, 12:19:55 AM
As an aside, Threviel, around here "buying local" is more about supporting smaller and local operators, about the supposed flavours of the local terroir, and about feeling a connection to the local land and community. I don't think I've come across anyone articulating "lower carbon foot-print" as a significant motivation or point of marketing.

Around here lowered transports are given as a reason, in addition to what you write. What you describe is a luxury that we westerners can afford and what I wrote above won't probably be true for us. We can afford to waste and be inefficient, less so the rest of the world.

And your, or mine for that matter, tomatoes from the greenhouse is neither here nor there, we (probably) don't waste energy heating them.

A while ago I recall reading an article by the person who first coined the term virtue signalling.
Its original meaning is in corporations trying to advertise how good and friendly to the environment and workers they are whilst not actually doing anything positive in these directions.
Which I thought a much more sensible definition.

Though on environmental matters far more than virtue signaling it's ugly cousin vice signalling is an issue. The paint drinkers are increasingly turning outright anti environment. Look to coal rolling et al.
Interestingly the ven is heavy between vice signallers and those who chuck around virtue signalling as a casual insult for anyone who isn't an arse hole.

What's a ven?

Must be Venn diagram.

Quote from: Threviel on November 07, 2021, 01:31:39 AM
Around here lowered transports are given as a reason, in addition to what you write.

That's potentially silly, yes. Transport matters, but as you've shown production matters significantly more. Growing hothouse tomatoes in Northern Europe does seem pretty inefficient (though I suppose it might be alright if there's cheap geothermal energy available f. ex.). But if the C02 impact between local and imported production is close to even, then transport does matter.

... and I don't think you can safely generalize from Northern Sweden to the entire Western world. The C02 impact of any given local production compared to imported stuff is going to vary significantly based on the methods used and local conditions. It may be completely silly in your location (though I imagine foraged mushrooms, local fish, and local game is still going to be relatively competitive), but it may not be so elsewhere.

QuoteWhat you describe is a luxury that we westerners can afford and what I wrote above won't probably be true for us. We can afford to waste and be inefficient, less so the rest of the world.

I don't think that only rich Westerners can afford to buy local produce. In fact, I'm pretty sure that buying vegetables at the local farmer's market is a pretty widespread practice across many places in the world. Selling excess produce from your local farm to generate a bit of extra revenue is pretty common.

On another note: economic efficiency != C02 efficiency, and the two shouldn't be conflated. If some sort of behaviour reduces C02 emissions, but is an expensive luxury only accessible to some you are correct in your implication that it is not a blanket solution. But it doesn't follow that it shouldn't be done. And, in fact, shifting behaviour patterns to ones where people are willing to pay more money and take more time to lower C02 impact can very well be part of the solution. F. ex. if more people are willing to pay a premium (in time and money) to cross the Atlantic on passenger ships (excluding massive private yachts) rather than planes that'll have a positive impact on C02 emissions in spite of being economically inefficient.

Though of course the ideal actions are ones that are economically more efficient, lower C02 impact, and are more convenient for people. But sometimes you have to iterate through less than ideal stages to get there.

QuoteAnd your, or mine for that matter, tomatoes from the greenhouse is neither here nor there, we (probably) don't waste energy heating them.

It is IMO in fact very here. If the "buying local" thing gets refined to focus on low C02 impact products (say locally hunted game vs imported Australian beef, as opposed to heated hothouse tomatoes) then it potentially has a positive impact (marginal individually, of course, but potentially significant at scale).

Also, I don't need a hothouse to grow tomatoes  :goodboy:

I don't really get your point. Sure, we can grow tomatoes and tobacco here and sell on the market. Even figs and peaches (Skåne and Halland where I live is amongst the finest agricultural lands in the world, at least according to the local farmers) and all manner of exotic plants and animals. I can go int town and buy lots of different locally produced produce.

It's very inefficient though, we ought to focus on the products that give the most per surface unit and then import higher quality exotic products from where they grow most efficiently. If that means that you can buy locally produced peaches it probably also means that you ought to eat imported potatoes.

But when it comes to vegetables its more or less meaningless to haggle about that, we can probably produce enough vegetables to feed the world even if we do it inefficiently. Meat on the other hand. Beef for example is ten times worse for the environment than a similar plant based product. Mutton eight, pigs I don't remember, but less. Chicken two times worse. We're soon out of fish and IIRC it's surprisingly CO2 intensive

Quote from: Threviel on November 07, 2021, 02:11:52 PM
I don't really get your point. Sure, we can grow tomatoes and tobacco here and sell on the market. Even figs and peaches (Skåne and Halland where I live is amongst the finest agricultural lands in the world, at least according to the local farmers) and all manner of exotic plants and animals. I can go int town and buy lots of different locally produced produce.

It's very inefficient though, we ought to focus on the products that give the most per surface unit and then import higher quality exotic products from where they grow most efficiently. If that means that you can buy locally produced peaches it probably also means that you ought to eat imported potatoes.

But when it comes to vegetables its more or less meaningless to haggle about that, we can probably produce enough vegetables to feed the world even if we do it inefficiently. Meat on the other hand. Beef for example is ten times worse for the environment than a similar plant based product. Mutton eight, pigs I don't remember, but less. Chicken two times worse. We're soon out of fish and IIRC it's surprisingly CO2 intensive

My points were:

1) Economically efficient and CO2 efficient are not necessarily the same thing, and the two things should not be conflated.

2) I expect whether any given local production is more or less C02 efficient depends on local specifics (and the specifics of the imported mass production as well).

3) I believe that the argument that buying local is a luxury that only Westerners can afford is incorrect. Even if it was correct, it is not a relevant counter argument.

4) If buying local production is, in the big scheme of things, a status purchase that is a net neutral in terms of C02 the "virtue signalling" and luxury components - as well as the marketing and distribution infrastructure - is primed for being shifted towards lower impact consumption if that lower impact can be clearly demonstrated (and marketed).

5) Getting rich Westerners to spend at a premium to lower their environmental impact is absolutely a legitimate strategy in lowering C02 emissions (though not the only one, and probably not the most efficient one).

You're right about meat consumption. I guess the two main approaches is encouraging vegetarianism (which is probably going to be countered by increased meat consumption in places moving out of poverty) and finding ways to make the meat production process less CO2 intensive.

Quote from: mongers on July 24, 2021, 07:05:56 AM
What are 'we' doing about climate change, individually and as a community?

Might there be things we're doing and others approaches many of us could undertake?

Or are we mainly happy to kick cans down the road and rely on that old standard of 'this is too big a problem and can only be tackled by governments'?

Just under a hundred day till the Cop26 meeting in Scotland, the bright side is the US government is serious about the emergency we find ourselves in and will likely get some movement from over governments.
Though most of those key polluters seem addicted to the sound of tin cans on gravel.

Individually, I have taken public transport, train or bus for the last decade.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 07, 2021, 09:32:09 PM

Individually, I have taken public transport, train or bus for the last decade.

:thumbsup:

Because of Mongers I have stopped eating baked potatoes.

Quote from: PDH on November 08, 2021, 01:04:31 PM
Because of Mongers I have stopped eating baked potatoes.

:cool:

A worthwhile alternative might be steak sandwiches without the bread.

Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
You're right about meat consumption. I guess the two main approaches is encouraging vegetarianism

rather, we should aim at decreasing our consumption of meat, not abandoning it.  Beef is a strong source of vitamin B12, and of protein of course, and much easier to digest for the human body than any vegetal protein. 

Besides, full vegan would be bad for the environment, but we've been over that before.  Even only vegetarian wouldn't be good for the planet, overall.  Animal dejections provide a natural source of fertilizer, which you need to grow your products.  While technically, we could use human waste, it has other problem, like the spread of some infectious diseases.

Quote from: viper37 on November 10, 2021, 01:12:58 PM

Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2021, 03:42:59 PM
You're right about meat consumption. I guess the two main approaches is encouraging vegetarianism

rather, we should aim at decreasing our consumption of meat, not abandoning it.  Beef is a strong source of vitamin B12, and of protein of course, and much easier to digest for the human body than any vegetal protein. 

Besides, full vegan would be bad for the environment, but we've been over that before.  Even only vegetarian wouldn't be good for the planet, overall.  Animal dejections provide a natural source of fertilizer, which you need to grow your products.  While technically, we could use human waste, it has other problem, like the spread of some infectious diseases.

There's also a lot of arid land currently used for grazing cattle (or other animals) that isn't really suitable for growing crops anyways.

I'm cool with reducing meat consumption, and am taking steps to do so, but have no intention of going full vegetarian/vegan.

Yeah me neither. And I am happy to hear that it's better to just reduce meat consumption than giving it up. I hope it's correct.

Quote from: Jacob on November 10, 2021, 01:39:51 PM
Yeah me neither. And I am happy to hear that it's better to just reduce meat consumption than giving it up. I hope it's correct.

Living with and trying to accommodate a vegetarian has been eye-opening.

First of course in that you can make some really good and nutritious vegetarian meals.  But they can be just as time consuming, if not more so, than meals with meat.

But a lot of the "quicker" vegetarian meal options, in particular a lot of the 'fake meat' kinds, seem even more highly processed and honestly worse for you than the meat-based original.

Definitely on board with reduction rather than go veggie.
But beef is one where we really should make a bit of an exception and try to cut it out. It's absolutely awful for the environment. It's the major contributer to the destruction of the amazon and then there's all those cow farts. Sucks it's so delicious.

I eat Canadian beef and maybe occasional Australian beef I suppose. So no worries about the Aamazon on my account. Still responsible for the cow farts, of course. I guess the same goes for dairy.

I buy beef from a farm just north of Pemberton (North of Vancouver) which practices soil regenerative farming - basically what that means is they use cow poo to build up the soil.  Not much downside except for the methane the cows produce.  But since they are all grass fed, on the fields they regenerate by pooping while grazing, it is less than the industrial cow operations.    I also buy chicken and eggs from them - they send chickens in after they move the cows out of a field.  So no grain fed chickens which again reduces the carbon footprint.

They do a pretty good business.

In Quebec, beef consumption is an outlet for thousands of former dairy cows.

Usually "retired" dairy cows are turned into dog and cat food, it's the male caves that become human food (from the diary side anyway). Although there's a relatively new trend of dry aging dairy cows for fancy meat.

*edit* in Ontario anyway

Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2021, 06:15:29 PM
Definitely on board with reduction rather than go veggie.
But beef is one where we really should make a bit of an exception and try to cut it out. It's absolutely awful for the environment. It's the major contributer to the destruction of the amazon and then there's all those cow farts. Sucks it's so delicious.

There is no Amazon forest in Alberta :P

I think there's a huge difference between the mass producing of cows for ground beef and cheap steaks/beef cuts in fast food chains and buying a good piece of steak once in a while at your favorite butcher, or your favorite restaurants.

Besides, a lot of what fast food produces ends up in the trash can, unless they changed their policies in the last few years.  Burgers are often produced in advance during meal hours, and if not taken after X minutes, they're thrown away.  That's a lot of CO2 produced for nothing.

Quote from: HVC on November 10, 2021, 08:16:20 PM
Usually "retired" dairy cows are turned into dog and cat food, it's the male caves that become human food (from the diary side anyway). Although there's a relatively new trend of dry aging dairy cows for fancy meat.

*edit* in Ontario anyway

retired dairy cows can be turned into ground beef, or very slim steak cuts for human production.  But that's the stuff you buy at a grocery store or a butcher, not where distributors and restaurants will buy their meet.

Quote from: Jacob on November 10, 2021, 06:20:48 PM
I eat Canadian beef and maybe occasional Australian beef I suppose. So no worries about the Aamazon on my account. Still responsible for the cow farts, of course. I guess the same goes for dairy.

there are ways to attenuate the impact for dairy farms, but our governments don't seem to have invested much into this.

Basically, you can use the methane to produce electricity for a small community around the farm.  Also, dejections are stocked in concrete structures and methane is only released when they move it around.  If they plow quickly after spreading the shit, most of the nutrients are absorbed by the ground.

But just like pigs, when you have so much animals in one small sector, there's just too much of the stuff, and that's where we have problems.

Quote from: viper37 on November 11, 2021, 03:37:48 PM
Basically, you can use the methane to produce electricity for a small community around the farm.

How does this work?  Do you shove a tube up their ass?

Also makes me wonder how much human farting contributes to climate change.  :hmm:

My bad.  :Embarrass: