Extinction Rebellion

[Scully]

On 26/07/2019 at 10:34, SpringDon said:

How about individual responsibility? The only real power you have is your vote and where you spend your money. Nobody need to fly away  holidays or buy from amazon.

If enough people actually cared, palm oil based deforestation could be drastically reduced tomorrow by the majority to buy products containing palm oil. But they don’t and it won’t.

People have to be the change they want to see, it can’t be imposed from above. Paint won’t stick if the substrate isnt prepared even if that paint is green.

 

And this is exactly why people will be taxed, because from an individual perspective not enough people actually care, and why should they? See last paragraph. 

I'm not going to stop flying abroad for my holidays, nor even stop driving to a holiday destination, nor do I know anyone who is,  and I worked in the sustainable/low carbon/ green/ housing business for almost 20 years.  ( Believe me, some of our clients are the biggest hypocrites around ! ) It's ok suggesting 'we should pay', but no one seems to know what we would be paying for.

Newcastle council suggested I pay a tax for driving my 4x4 into Newcastle city centre to reduce air pollution, but if I paid the tax it was perfectly ok to carry on polluting!!  On enquiry, no one could tell me where the tax would go or what it would be used for even if I paid it! 😀

For the sake of the planet I can stay at home and only venture out to work, while the rest of the world gets on with living, but why should I? 

We're only here once; people want to live while they're here.....it's all we have. 

[Scully]

On 26/07/2019 at 10:44, JohnfromUK said:

It does go along way.  I try and do that myself, in that I have not flown for holiday/leisure since 1987, and have not flown at all now for about 5 years.  I only do about 6000 car miles a year in total, and try and buy local or at least UK food produce.  I have a very efficient (gas) heating system and my house is as well insulated as possible within the constraints of being a listed building 400 years old in parts.  The internal winter temperature is also set very low by most peoples standards (which is in fact a big saving).  I have also in my life planted and keep several acres of woodland.

I do however use Amazon/delivery services (which may be not so bad for someone who lives in the sticks as it avoids personal car usage) and my cars are relatively thirsty (but old, have saved the impact of being recycled yet).

I wouldn't worry, too much. I was once told by someone whom seemed well in the know, that the biggest carbon footprint created in a modern vehicles lifetime, is the one created by its actual manufacture. 

[JohnfromUK]

42 minutes ago, Scully said:

I wouldn't worry, too much. I was once told by someone whom seemed well in the know, that the biggest carbon footprint created in a modern vehicles lifetime, is the one created by its actual manufacture. 

Yes, I believe that is absolutely correct.

[Yellow Bear]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

I wouldn't worry, too much. I was once told by someone whom seemed well in the know, that the biggest carbon footprint created in a modern vehicles lifetime, is the one created by its actual manufacture. 

It also applies to Wind and Solar generation equipment - I have not checked for a year or two but they only used to produce about 2/3 of the energy used in their production, maintenance , and management in their lifetime.

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

It also applies to Wind and Solar generation equipment - I have not checked for a year or two but they only used to produce about 2/3 of the energy used in their production, maintenance , and management in their lifetime.

That does not surprise me.

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

It also applies to Wind and Solar generation equipment - I have not checked for a year or two but they only used to produce about 2/3 of the energy used in their production, maintenance , and management in their lifetime.

I don’t know about current solar panelling, but when we first started building eco ‘sustainable’ housing back in about 1998, I was told the photovoltaics fitted by the installation companies of the time, only had an effective lifespan of about 25 years. 

[oowee]

27 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

It also applies to Wind and Solar generation equipment - I have not checked for a year or two but they only used to produce about 2/3 of the energy used in their production, maintenance , and management in their lifetime.

Solar has improved massively in recent years. On some of the better panels manufacturing energy pay back is a little over a year. Unfortunately many of those installed at domestic level produce energy that is then burnt off as heat at the sub station as the grid cannot handle it yet. It can be used efficiently by the property but many have no call for power in daylight hours. When we get smart grid all of this will change 😂

[old man]

On 26/07/2019 at 11:31, WestonSalop said:

Even if we in the UK acted on and delivered tomorrow, all of the demands of these irresponsible idiots, it would not make a blind bit of difference to the impacts of global warming. The likes of China, the US, Brazil, India, Malaysia to name but a few, do not take the UK seriously on anything, so why should they say "Oh my word, look what the UK did - we'd better do the same". Get real folks.

Correct IMHO, that and the fact of previous ice ages tells me what i need to know.

Laughable really our tin pot politicos trying to impress the big stage, no stopping volcanoes or air travel whilst trying to make us plebs feel guilty for having the lights on and staying warm?

[ShootingEgg]

Had the discussion in Work on Friday, as I'm based in Bristol, loads of people have put the logo sticker on their laptops, against our IT policy but I'm not having an argument over a sticker. But one bloke seems to think that taking the subs away from oil gas and coal and putting it into renewable would solve everything and if the UK does it the world will follow.. I just laughed at that. India and China will not follow, they have a cheap reliable fuel source. We used it in the industrial revolution so they will just tell us to put up and shut up. 

[JohnfromUK]

16 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

We used it in the industrial revolution so they will just tell us to put up and shut up. 

Whilst I understand the argument very well ......... there is a massive difference;

When we burned all of the coal during the industrial revolution (and to a degree up to the 1960s or later) .....

1. The amount we used was quite small by today's standards
2. The planet had much better reserves (rainforrest, jungle, wild areas of plant growth like savannah etc.) to remove the CO2
3. There was FAR less use of other CO2 producing activities, oil (end derivatives burning, gas burning, flying (which puts CO2 high up where it does most damage and isn't easily reconverted by plants
4. No one knew the risks (which were probably minimal on the scale done then anyway)

The big problem now is the scale of carbon usage - due to expanding and 'advancing' population.

Edited August 4, 2019 by JohnfromUK

[ShootingEgg]

6 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Whilst I understand the argument very well ......... there is a massive difference;

When we burned all of the coal during the industrial revolution (and to a degree up to the 1960s or later) .....

1. The amount we used was quite small by today's standards
2. The planet had much better reserves (rainforrest, jungle, wild areas of plant growth like savannah etc.) to remove the CO2
3. There was FAR less use of other CO2 producing activities, oil (end derivatives burning, gas burning, flying (which puts CO2 high up where it does most damage and isn't easily reconverted by plants
4. No one knew the risks (which were probably minimal on the scale done then anyway)

The big problem now is the scale of carbon usage - due to expanding and 'advancing' population.

All very good points, that they will ignore. Germany are still taking coal out of the land and want to remove woodland to take more. Not even the EU give a damn... 

[JohnfromUK]

14 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

Germany are still taking coal out of the land and want to remove woodland to take more. Not even the EU give a damn...

Germany reduced nuclear like a hot cake (after Fukushima?) in a move driven by their 'Greens' who hold a position of influence under the typical co-coalition governments Germany usually has.  They used to get 25% of their energy that way, but now about half that and planned to drop to zero by 2022.  To be fair, they now get about 35% from renewables (wind, hydro, biomass and solar) and about 35% from coal, much of it lignite which is very dirty burning coal.

The EU wouldn't give a toss.  They have always been about filling the EU officials pockets and pensions, and things like 'ever closer Union' (= more petty rules).  They are supremely wasteful and even move the whole EU parliament monthly between Strasbourg (Its official home) and Brussels (its official base) at huge cost (two buildings and sets of officials to maintain) simply to satisfy the childish and petulant nations like France who won't give up the Strasbourg location despite the Commission being in Brussels.  I quote "For four days a month, the entire European Parliament moves from Brussels to Strasbourg. ... On 12 Mondays every year, 751 MEPs – flanked by their parliamentary assistants, political group advisors, hordes of ushers, drivers and civil servants, together with hundreds of files – move to Strasbourg."

It is similar to us having Parliament in London and all of the Civil Service in say Manchester, with a second set of Parliamentary premises there.  Massively wasteful.

The EU doesn't and never has had any intention to save money, energy, or any resources.  They get their power that way.

[Kalahari]

The Germans use a huge amount of nuclear generated electricity. It is just that the French generate it and they buy it. So that doesn't count then!

 

David.