Current Affairs Environmental Stuff

[orchard]

Developed nations are in a position to react quickly; developing nations are not. The UK is susceptible to climate change like every other nation, but nowhere near to the degree others are. There needs to be an honest discussion and assessment about where is likely to be hit hardest and where isn't, and focus placed on those areas.

What you are suggesting is a utopian economic model where everyone buys based on the 'carbon footprint' of each purchase. It's impossible due to financial disparity.

China's growth is due to supply and demand. If current demand changed, China would change it's strategy to supply - but ultimately, they'd be supplying based on cost efficiency. Very few are going to buy a kettle for £500 when a £50 kettle does ostensibly the same job.

Again, the 'blame' here isn't on the consumer, because they're just doing what every consumer has done since the dawn of time; look for value, with everyones perception of value being different based on income. Try telling a single mum on benefits with two kids that she's a monster for getting her kid Chinese knock-off play'doh for Christmas at 10% of the price of the 'real' thing, even if it pollutes 100x more to make - why should her kids go without it? It's the same principle.

The solution is technological innovation, bringing 'cleaner, more efficient' products into the hands of consumers at the same price as the older ones - for example, see the success of LED bulbs replacing halogen.

But that takes time we don't have. The general 'top down' onus is on cutting emissions, meaning any new technologies being pursued for 20 years down the line are being based on that remit - so that will happen organically. But in terms of immediate action, there's nothing we can do to prevent climate change; we can only mitigate against the damage it will definitely cause.

There's a lot there to reply to mate, and I can't do it justice I'm afraid.

I'm not suggesting it's solely down to an individual's footprint, as I've said here severally, it's systemic, from offshoring to China to keep wages low here, to centralised infrastructure like hospitals and abattoirs with a built in dependency upon cheap fuel.

As for the child going without play doh (when a natural dye and old flour can do the job), how are they going to foot the financial cost for your idea to climate-proof a good chunk of the world for something you think is purely down to China and India?

So, in essence, your position is everyone's entitled to consume what they want, at whatever cost to the environment, however, someone-somewhere-sometime will have to do some token stuff for the global poor.

 

[orchard]

I think when that lady said "oh god" she was speaking for us all

Did he go to today's UN meeting, or send some other cockwomble?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

There's a lot there to reply to mate, and I can't do it justice I'm afraid.

I'm not suggesting it's solely down to an individual's footprint, as I've said here severally, it's systemic, from offshoring to China to keep wages low here, to centralised infrastructure like hospitals and abattoirs with a built in dependency upon cheap fuel.

As for the child going without play doh (when a natural dye and old flour can do the job), how are they going to foot the financial cost for your idea to climate-proof a good chunk of the world for something you think is purely down to China and India?

So, in essence, your position is everyone's entitled to consume what they want, at whatever cost to the environment, however, someone-somewhere-sometime will have to do some token stuff for the global poor.

It's an approach that has worked well for getting vaccines to them

 

[orchard]

It's an approach that has worked well for getting vaccines to them

Yeah, RCP 8.5, major food shortages, flooding, droughts, et al, will deffo help people's ability to be charitable to those on the other side of the world.

There's a whole world out there besides fiat currency and excessive consumption. At least for now.

 

[BlueToff]

Still defending them?

 

[mill]

Loads of climate activists roll their eyes at 'blaming China' - because they don't have an answer to it.

Everyone in the UK could switch to Bruce's thermos kettle tomorrow forevermore and it'd be negated by China inside a month.

This is just reality I'm afraid. We're not "making that hurricane" any worse, because we're 1% of global emissions.

The geopolitical reality is that nothing we do individually is going to make a blind bit of difference. It's time to acknowledge that instead of sitting on motorways in rush hour.

The solution is to create conditions in risk areas to mitigate damage, and that to me looks like a form of reparations to developing nations to erect flood defences etc. etc. - there's no point wasting money on lowering our emissions; you may as well send that money to where it will have the greatest effect.

The developed world consume ALOT more than the developing world and over the last few decades have been outsourcing a lot of our manufacturing etc to the developing world. So whilst the emissions might be happening in the developing world, it’s the developed world that are ultimately responsible. Our carbon footprint isn’t really a fair reflection of our actual impact on emissions

China has been in the developing bucket for a long time though have more recently been restructuring their economy away from exports and toward services (and thus consumption).

ultimately though, like covid, it’s kinda pointless to look at things at a country by country level. It’s a global problem and requires a global approach.

 

[Tubey]

The developed world consume ALOT more than the developing world and over the last few decades have been outsourcing a lot of our manufacturing etc to the developing world. So whilst the emissions might be happening in the developing world, it’s the developed world that are ultimately responsible. Our carbon footprint isn’t really a fair reflection of our actual impact on emissions

China has been in the developing bucket for a long time though have more recently been restructuring their economy away from exports and toward services (and thus consumption).

ultimately though, like covid, it’s kinda pointless to look at things at a country by country level. It’s a global problem and requires a global approach.

Yes, 'per capita' etc. I know. But that's how supply and demand works - if China decided not to meet demand, someone else would. So a 'global approach' would mean making it impossible to make products or take actions that are above a certain emissions threshold.

Good luck with that, because that would mean prices rising massively all over the place, job losses, starvation, global economies wrecked, governments in freefall etc. because it'd be comfortably the biggest artificial barrier on supply and demand ever seen. Imagine, for example, making driving a petrol/diesel car or motorcycle illegal worldwide tomorrow, or telling China/India they can't use coal. It's impossible.

It's not about 'blaming' China for this, it's about acknowledging the geopolitical reality of it. The chances of a global approach that would make pretty much any difference whatsoever to global warming in the short to medium term is laughable - it's an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle; just isn't happening. In the longer term, 50-100 years, technologically we'll be able to meet 'net zero' because all development is geared towards that now. Prices for emergent technologies will fall to become cost-effective as the norm; we're simply not there yet. That's why I have an issue with the 'climate emergency' crowd; it's a delusion to think there's any immediate fix.

Until then, for me it's fairly obvious what we should be looking at - mitigation. The buildings already on fire, so focus on fighting the fire instead of putting a sprinkler system in; it's too late.

 

[Blue 1]

Still defending them?

Amateurs. Back in the day they drilled holes in the M40, planted trees on it and put a rave on.

 

[mill]

Yes, 'per capita' etc. I know. But that's how supply and demand works - if China decided not to meet demand, someone else would. So a 'global approach' would mean making it impossible to make products or take actions that are above a certain emissions threshold.

Good luck with that, because that would mean prices rising massively all over the place, job losses, starvation, global economies wrecked, governments in freefall etc. because it'd be comfortably the biggest artificial barrier on supply and demand ever seen. Imagine, for example, making driving a petrol/diesel car or motorcycle illegal worldwide tomorrow, or telling China/India they can't use coal. It's impossible.

It's not about 'blaming' China for this, it's about acknowledging the geopolitical reality of it. The chances of a global approach that would make pretty much any difference whatsoever to global warming in the short to medium term is laughable - it's an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle; just isn't happening. In the longer term, 50-100 years, technologically we'll be able to meet 'net zero' because all development is geared towards that now. Prices for emergent technologies will fall to become cost-effective as the norm; we're simply not there yet. That's why I have an issue with the 'climate emergency' crowd; it's a delusion to think there's any immediate fix.

Until then, for me it's fairly obvious what we should be looking at - mitigation. The buildings already on fire, so focus on fighting the fire instead of putting a sprinkler system in; it's too late.

I don’t think anyone thinks that there is a quick fix. I think most people understand that it will take time. But also that we have to act now.

You are talking about another country filling china’s void but the issue really is one of consumption and how much of our lives are driven by want rather than need.

There are ALOT of unnecessary things. I think one thing that has been quite stark for me as a parent for instance is toys and how much waste there is there. The constant pressure and cycle there (Christmas/birthdays etc). It really has made me realise just how unhealthy it is. I think those are the things we need to focus on. Address the want v need mentality in society. There’s no void to fill if we just stop consuming so much unnecessarily.

 

[Tubey]

I don’t think anyone thinks that there is a quick fix. I think most people understand that it will take time. But also that we have to act now.

You are talking about another country filling china’s void but the issue really is one of consumption and how much of our lives are driven by want rather than need.

There are ALOT of unnecessary things. I think one thing that has been quite stark for me as a parent for instance is toys and how much waste there is there. The constant pressure and cycle there (Christmas/birthdays etc). It really has made me realise just how unhealthy it is. I think those are the things we need to focus on. Address the want v need mentality in society. There’s no void to fill if we just stop consuming so much unnecessarily.

Again, this comes down to ideology about a theoretical utopian society where everyone only gets what they need, versus the reality. 'Need' is very subjective - technically all you 'need' to survive is shelter, heat, water and food. In reality, people 'need' more than that. It's not realistic to expect otherwise.

Taking toys as an example, some kids have VR headsets, 60 inch TVs with PS5s/Nintendo Switch/XBox, with the latest Hot Wheels sets and so on. There's then a sliding scale where some kids will have the PS4, or the PS3 or whatever. What gives anyone the right to tell one parent what their kids can and can't have if they can afford to give it to them? Why should my kid go without when Johnny Rich gets everything and his parents don't give a toss about the environment? Why should I give up my car when Johnson and his mates are flying around in private jets?

Humans are inherently selfish in that they look after themselves and their own family as priority one. That's not a bad thing, and it's not going to change. The only way to 'act' and change that is to make everything 'bad' for the environment so prohibitively expensive that nobody but the rich can have them, which would be horrendous, akin to feudal serfdom, OR to get rid of capitalism and live in a society where everyone gets the same utilitarian treatment and everything 'bad' is banned, which is impossible as 'some would be more equal than others' as we well know.

It's easy to say we need to 'act'; the problem is when you play out what 'act' needs to be done, it turns out to be impossible at worst, or futile at best. I just think it's time to be grown up about this and say, yes, be responsible where possible, apply pressure where it needs to be applied, advocate for 'greener' technology and solutions... but ultimately climate change is happening and we can't really do anything about it given our current society and technological limitations. The industrial revolution, the rise of capitalism and western democracy meant what we're facing now has been inevitable for 100 years.

 

[mill]

Again, this comes down to ideology about a theoretical utopian society where everyone only gets what they need, versus the reality. 'Need' is very subjective - technically all you 'need' to survive is shelter, heat, water and food. In reality, people 'need' more than that. It's not realistic to expect otherwise.

Taking toys as an example, some kids have VR headsets, 60 inch TVs with PS5s/Nintendo Switch/XBox, with the latest Hot Wheels sets and so on. There's then a sliding scale where some kids will have the PS4, or the PS3 or whatever. What gives anyone the right to tell one parent what their kids can and can't have if they can afford to give it to them? Why should my kid go without when Johnny Rich gets everything and his parents don't give a toss about the environment? Why should I give up my car when Johnson and his mates are flying around in private jets?

Humans are inherently selfish in that they look after themselves and their own family as priority one. That's not a bad thing, and it's not going to change. The only way to 'act' and change that is to make everything 'bad' for the environment so prohibitively expensive that nobody but the rich can have them, which would be horrendous, akin to feudal serfdom, OR to get rid of capitalism and live in a society where everyone gets the same utilitarian treatment and everything 'bad' is banned, which is impossible as 'some would be more equal than others' as we well know.

It's easy to say we need to 'act'; the problem is when you play out what 'act' needs to be done, it turns out to be impossible at worst, or futile at best. I just think it's time to be grown up about this and say, yes, be responsible where possible, apply pressure where it needs to be applied, advocate for 'greener' technology and solutions... but ultimately climate change is happening and we can't really do anything about it given our current society and technological limitations. The industrial revolution, the rise of capitalism and western democracy meant what we're facing now has been inevitable for 100 years.

One thing I find quite hard when talking to you is that you always seem to go to the extreme version of what is being said. I made the point that it’s not a simple switch and highlighted an area where we can make a genuine impact in climate. I said we need to address the want v need cycle. I didn’t imply a utopian society. I didn’t say anything about my expectations of what is achievable. I made the point that toys are an area why the balance is excessively in the direction of consumption for consumptions sake.

This thing is about marginal gains. It’s not about a whole step change approach. It’s a few less presents a year. It’s recycling clothes instead of sending them to the top. It’s not wasting as much food because it’s a couple of days part it’s sell by date. It’s putting on a jumper. Or deciding to walk somewhere instead of drive. It’s eating less meat. All of those things are achievable at a micro level and applied in aggregate at a macro level would have a significant impact globally.

But it’s hard to make these points with you because you keep coming back to this extreme, people expect utopia thing and I’m not sure why you are fixated on that. Yes there are extremists but I don’t think that’s where the vast majority of people are.

 

[Tubey]

One thing I find quite hard when talking to you is that you always seem to go to the extreme version of what is being said. I made the point that it’s not a simple switch and highlighted an area where we can make a genuine impact in climate. I said we need to address the want v need cycle. I didn’t imply a utopian society. I didn’t say anything about my expectations of what is achievable. I made the point that toys are an area why the balance is excessively in the direction of consumption for consumptions sake.

This thing is about marginal gains. It’s not about a whole step change approach. It’s a few less presents a year. It’s recycling clothes instead of sending them to the top. It’s not wasting as much food because it’s a couple of days part it’s sell by date. It’s putting on a jumper. Or deciding to walk somewhere instead of drive. It’s eating less meat. All of those things are achievable at a micro level and applied in aggregate at a macro level would have a significant impact globally.

But it’s hard to make these points with you because you keep coming back to this extreme, people expect utopia thing and I’m not sure why you are fixated on that. Yes there are extremists but I don’t think that’s where the vast majority of people are.

No I get that but what I'm saying is that because it's painted as a 'climate emergency' and we're told we need to 'act now', then the measures have to be suitably extreme to meet an 'emergency' and the activists constantly paint it as a doomsday scenario that requires radical change. The 'X years to save the world' narrative, the Greta Thunberg manic panic.

I appreciate you saying it's about marginal gains (and that's exactly what I'm saying actually, that it'll organically change over the next 50 years as technology advances). But yes, I'm challenging the 'climate emergency' narrative. So when I do, you see the bold bit I've highlighted? What I'm saying is even that isn't viable in terms of being an imposition on people rather than a polite request - people will respond organically to that; sitting on a motorway does nothing; indeed, it's actually counter-productive because people will say 'screw you' and shove it to the back of their minds instead of being any sort of priority.

Where we differ fundamentally is about the difference such actions would make. I think it'd make barely any difference whatsoever; you think it'd have a significant impact globally. I'd rather the focus be on mitigation - if these climate activists acknowledged reality and said "here's where rising sea levels will devastate, put in action to mitigate it now', then I'd be a lot more supportive. But instead, they carry on the delusion it can be stopped - it realistically can't, even if it theoretically can.

 

[orchard]

No I get that but what I'm saying is that because it's painted as a 'climate emergency' and we're told we need to 'act now', then the measures have to be suitably extreme to meet an 'emergency' and the activists constantly paint it as a doomsday scenario that requires radical change. The 'X years to save the world' narrative, the Greta Thunberg manic panic.

I appreciate you saying it's about marginal gains (and that's exactly what I'm saying actually, that it'll organically change over the next 50 years as technology advances). But yes, I'm challenging the 'climate emergency' narrative. So when I do, you see the bold bit I've highlighted? What I'm saying is even that isn't viable in terms of being an imposition on people rather than a polite request - people will respond organically to that; sitting on a motorway does nothing; indeed, it's actually counter-productive because people will say 'screw you' and shove it to the back of their minds instead of being any sort of priority.

Where we differ fundamentally is about the difference such actions would make. I think it'd make barely any difference whatsoever; you think it'd have a significant impact globally. I'd rather the focus be on mitigation - if these climate activists acknowledged reality and said "here's where rising sea levels will devastate, put in action to mitigate it now', then I'd be a lot more supportive. But instead, they carry on the delusion it can be stopped - it realistically can't, even if it theoretically can.

Basically, you have no idea what's happening, can't be bothered with any change cos a bunch of activists put you off and it's gonna get sorted anywayz by scientists empowered by benevolent corporations like on a Hollywood film some time in the future. K.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Basically, you have no idea what's happening, can't be bothered with any change cos a bunch of activists put you off and it's gonna get sorted anywayz by scientists empowered by benevolent corporations like on a Hollywood film some time in the future. K.

It does kinda overlook the fact that with the majority of innovations, the early market tends to be those who really care for something and are willing to pay a higher price to service that need. It then tends to crossover into the mainstream with economies of scale making things more affordable to the masses.

Sometimes this process can be nudged along, as we've seen with solar power, where government subsidies helped the industry hugely during the stage in which the technology wasn't very competitive in terms of price per kwh. Now solar, and wind for that matter, are not only the best sources of energy for the climate but they're the most competitive on price too, which is why countries have been increasingly able to function on purely renewable energy for extended periods recently.

 

[Tubey]

It does kinda overlook the fact that with the majority of innovations, the early market tends to be those who really care for something and are willing to pay a higher price to service that need. It then tends to crossover into the mainstream with economies of scale making things more affordable to the masses.

Sometimes this process can be nudged along, as we've seen with solar power, where government subsidies helped the industry hugely during the stage in which the technology wasn't very competitive in terms of price per kwh. Now solar, and wind for that matter, are not only the best sources of energy for the climate but they're the most competitive on price too, which is why countries have been increasingly able to function on purely renewable energy for extended periods recently.

It doesn't 'overlook' that; it's actually stating that. Because emissions are the 'hot topic' with new innovation, everything coming down the pipeline will have that in mind. You've just gave several examples of that, and this didn't happen because some middle-class wastes of space sat on a motorway. Rather it was a logical response to a given situation.

It's like how energy saving lightbulbs were, at first, not viable. We didn't say to the poor "you can't afford them, screw you, stop using normal lightbulbs for 10 years to save the planet" - instead the adjustment was steady and 'nudged along'. Same with halogen bulbs which have just been banned for sale in the UK - done steadily, done when LED is comparable in initial outlay and much more cost effective in the long run - we didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater as soon as the tech became available.