Climate Emergency

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

Redskin said:

cantersaddick said:

Redskin said:

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Leuth said:

ken_shabby said:

Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'

We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.

That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms? 

That's exactly what we are doing. 

To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years. 

I know you don't like this response but that's the reality. 

In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?

So, you don't eat meat?

I've massively cut down. Particularly red meat. Generally eat meat once a week, maybe twice. The environment is one of the big reasons (health being the other).

Right, so you say 'we' should stop eating meat, yet you continue to do yourself.
Regardless of the fact that you 'eat meat once a week, maybe twice', you still eat meat.
You're very much from the school of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'

Where did I say stop eating meat? I said reverse the overconsumption of meat that has exploded over the last 50 years. Cutting meat out of my diet to roughly about 20% of what the average person does is exactly part of that. If everyone (or even half of people) did the same it would have a hugely positive impact on the environment. 

So yes do exactly as I do please.

But equally as would not buying many other products / consuming any number of things which are self indulgent purchases. 

The world has simply moved in and we no longer ‘make do and mend’ and keep things until unusable. 

Some on here travel great lengths to follow the team, the players might give away kit etc. 

Meat eating is just one of many things that could be targeted. 

Completely agree that it's happened in so many areas. I think we should reign back overconsumption in a lot of areas. Meat consumption is one in particular though where there is a lot of evidence of just how bad it is environmentally so we should focus on it.

One of the biggest problems to the environment is plastic (made with oil by products). How many of you would pay extra to have your milk sold in reusable/recyclable glass bottles instead of plastic containers? 

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

Redskin said:

cantersaddick said:

Redskin said:

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Leuth said:

ken_shabby said:

Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'

We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.

That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms? 

That's exactly what we are doing. 

To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years. 

I know you don't like this response but that's the reality. 

In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?

So, you don't eat meat?

I've massively cut down. Particularly red meat. Generally eat meat once a week, maybe twice. The environment is one of the big reasons (health being the other).

Right, so you say 'we' should stop eating meat, yet you continue to do yourself.
Regardless of the fact that you 'eat meat once a week, maybe twice', you still eat meat.
You're very much from the school of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'

Where did I say stop eating meat? I said reverse the overconsumption of meat that has exploded over the last 50 years. Cutting meat out of my diet to roughly about 20% of what the average person does is exactly part of that. If everyone (or even half of people) did the same it would have a hugely positive impact on the environment. 

So yes do exactly as I do please.

But equally as would not buying many other products / consuming any number of things which are self indulgent purchases. 

The world has simply moved in and we no longer ‘make do and mend’ and keep things until unusable. 

Some on here travel great lengths to follow the team, the players might give away kit etc. 

Meat eating is just one of many things that could be targeted. 

Completely agree that it's happened in so many areas. I think we should reign back overconsumption in a lot of areas. Meat consumption is one in particular though where there is a lot of evidence of just how bad it is environmentally so we should focus on it.

And foreign travel as an example is also something we could cut but we (all) don’t. Cutting down is only a very very small step. 

Redskin said:

cantersaddick said:

Equally we are allowed to have a conversation about possible courses of action that would impact on climate change without necessarily having to be already doing them. 

Though as said I have taken a lot of actions in my life to try and make a difference on climate change. 

What exactly have you done @Redskin

Firstly, I'm not the one on here issuing diktats on how people should be living their lives with regard to 'Climate Change'.
I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.
What I'm sceptical and critical of is the multi billion dollar Industry that it is 'Climate Change' and the quasi-religious, pharisaical posturing of its smug adherents.
As for what I do: I have no children. I have never owned or driven a car. Last year, I walked 884 miles. I eat meat two or three times a week. I do not, and never will, own a dishwasher. I take one flight to Europe a year, and very occasionally two.
It would appear that my carbon footprint is somewhat less than yours...

Diktats? I said "why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?" It was a question. I wasn't telling anyone to do anything. It was a question for discussion on a thread discussing climate change.

I'm glad you do all of those things. If more people took those actions we would be in a much better place. 

It's not a pissing contest. We should be celebrating each others successes. I don't know how you can assert your carbon footprint (BTW this is a concept invented by the fossil fuels industry to put the responsibility on the consumer rather than producer) is less than mine when you know nothing about me. I do pretty much everything you list, almost exclusively use public transport, when I do have to use a car it's a car share. My average number of flights (not return trips but flights) a year since I turned 18 is less than 0.8 (though I'll accepted the last 18 months haven't been great on that front but some personal things were very important to me). 

Chizz said:

King Charles will need to consult six different organisations before he can make any changes to the 71 gas-powered lanterns in Buckingham Palace's courtyards.

The King is looking to refit the lanterns with new mantles to hold LED bulbs, which will make them more energy efficient. 

But before any work can be done, he needs to seek the views of Historic England, The Metropolitan Police, the Gardens Trust, the Royal Parks and the National Amenity Societies, before going to Westminster Council.

Out of interest, how do you know this @Chizz It’s a staggering amount of information for a layman to know. Are you employed by the Royal Household? 

cantersaddick said:

Dansk_Red said:

One of the biggest problems to the environment is plastic (made with oil by products). How many of you would pay extra to have your milk sold in reusable/recyclable glass bottles instead of plastic containers? 

Milkman with glass bottles are making a return in quire a big way.

But are you willing to pay a premium of 50% over the supermarket price? I do and have only ever bought milk in supermarkets in an emergency. I am old enough to remember daily milk and bread deliveries by horse drawn carts. 

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

Dansk_Red said:

One of the biggest problems to the environment is plastic (made with oil by products). How many of you would pay extra to have your milk sold in reusable/recyclable glass bottles instead of plastic containers? 

Milkman with glass bottles are making a return in quire a big way.

Define ‘big way’ ?

And quire.

 @Redskin -  You said:

I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.

‐--------------------

On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground. 

I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives. 

I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions)  are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices? 

JaShea99 said:

This thread would be hilarious if the subject wasn’t so tragic. I hate to break it to you but if there is ever any sort of solution to be found, it won’t be done by a few blokes on a football forum.

Bang on. I will never eat a sirloin steak again without feeling guilty about it. And I love ketchup with it.

JaShea99 said:

This thread would be hilarious if the subject wasn’t so tragic. I hate to break it to you but if there is ever any sort of solution to be found, it won’t be done by a few blokes on a football forum.

Whereas,  of course, we are always solving any problems relating to our football club

Siv_in_Norfolk said:

 @Redskin -  You said:

I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.

‐--------------------

On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground. 

I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives. 

I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions)  are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices? 

I'd be interested in @Redskin's reply, because I think I'm probably on the same page as him.

This thread appears to be going around in circles with a clear division based on political grounds, becoming apparent.

Everyone agrees that Climate change is  influenced by the actions of mankind.

Everyone cares about the environment and wants clean air and oceans.

In a nutshell, one side believes that rich people and their over consumption of beef, travel etc is the primary problem, solve that and we'll be fine.

Whilst the other (my side) believes that overpopulation, coupled with making vast numbers of people poorer by imposing Green taxes, limiting drilling etc (thus making energy more expensive) actually exasperates the problem rather than improving it, ie shooting ourselves in the foot.

Poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns.

Things like paying to take their rubbish to the tip, or having to pay large electric bills, are to be avoided, whilst installing solar panels or buying electric cars are out of the question for them.
Cooking on an open fire costs next to nothing, burning garbage costs nothing, throwing effluent into the waterways costs nothing, etc etc

An ever increasing population, coupled with a decreasing supply, increases costs, people get poorer, pollution gets worse, as does global warming.

Chippycafc said:

JaShea99 said:

This thread would be hilarious if the subject wasn’t so tragic. I hate to break it to you but if there is ever any sort of solution to be found, it won’t be done by a few blokes on a football forum.

Bang on. I will never eat a sirloin steak again without feeling guilty about it. And I love ketchup with it.

Ketchup on a sirloin, probably the most offensive thing posted on this thread. Jeezy peeps man.

Milk - cow calf growth fluid alternatives are available in more easily recyclable cartons than the entirely plastic ones.