Loading Notifications...

Climber - @KevinClimate on Climate Change

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
 LeeWood 27 Jun 2020

@Kevin Climate is Kevin Anderson of Manchester. He is also a keen member of the climbing community. In the year 1999 he was my principal climbing partner - we did Big Groove together at Gogarth.

BIG exposure here in this new Guardian article - his life is testimony to conviction - has not stepped on a plane since 2004 !

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/26/leading-scientist-criticises-uk-over-its-climate-record

Recurrent theme - the wealthy - not only the ones who put the brakes on change via the lobbies - but also the biggest polluters. 

Q: “Globally the wealthiest 10% are responsible for half of all emissions, the wealthiest 20% for 70% of emissions.

Report
 SteveX 28 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Thank you for sharing that is a good article. As with all good articles it raises questions, may I ask 2.

  1. What percentage of EU citizens are in the Global wealthiest 10% and how is this spread across Europe. ie, I would suggest that a large or very large percentage in Germany, UK, France, Netherlands are, whilst a much lower percentage are in Poland, Hungary, Spain and Portugal.
  2. Because I am constantly challenging my own CO2 footprint due to climbing, how does your friend manage his.

One of the greatest problems I would think we will have with dealing with CC is that people do not like criticism and as soon as you criticise someone they immediately go on the defensive, and stop listening. So you can hear a person who is onboard with that something needs doing, however if you mention that they have driven to Scotland 3 times in the last 2 months and flown to El Chorro to climb, they straight away get defensive and justify why they are not the problem and its someone else to blame, I know I do this.

Like I said good article.

Post edited at 10:14
Report
 LeeWood 28 Jun 2020
In reply to SteveX:

> What percentage of EU citizens are in the Global wealthiest 10% and how is this spread across Europe. ie, I would suggest that a large or very large percentage in Germany, UK, France, Netherlands are, whilst a much lower percentage are in Poland, Hungary, Spain and Portugal.

This could be a starting place:

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

Germany, UK, France, Netherlands rank 5, 4, 6, 11

Poland, Hungary, Spain and Portugal rank 32, NR, 10, 32 

However when you shuffle by millionaires as pop density - v different order

Neth 4, UK 9, FR 14, Ge 16, Sp 22, Port 27, Pol 30, 

This latter gives an idea of wealth spread - inequality

Report
 SteveX 28 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Thank you that is interesting. However it still seems to shift the emphasis to someone else, in this case "millionaires", not that I am suggesting this is your intention. This https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-in-the-richest-10-percent-worldwide.html suggests that a person needs a net worth of circa £74K to be in the top 10%, which I would suggest that many people in the UK will have or be on to track to have as they pay down their mortgage.
A difficulty seems to be to get people to accept responsibility and not shift it to some nebulous other. The person just a bit richer or China or, someone else, and as I said if you push it slightly it is seen as criticism. The first chapter of this book https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people/ discusses criticism and I cited it in an essay on this very subject. Because Climate Change is IMHO about human behaviour as much as anything, therefore to solve the problem we need to understand that.

Post edited at 12:00
Report
 Paul Evans 28 Jun 2020
In reply to LeeWood:

Yes, a good article. Surprisingly tricky to find out what income level qualifies as "global top 10%", but this helps - https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality the "daily income per capita" graph for 2015 data suggests that it lies between $50 and $100 per day per person.

Paul

Report
In reply to SteveX:

If you're reading this, you're easily in that wealthiest 20%.

Report
 SteveX 28 Jun 2020
In reply to bouldery bits:

> If you're reading this, you're easily in that wealthiest 20%.

Probably, but that is not the top 10%, therefore in the context of that article it gives me justification to pass the buck, so to speak. My point is that too many people pass the buck. I am suggesting that people need to accept that they are part of the problem ,and that they are harming others, and that action they could take can help, and that they and their families will not lose out to freeloaders if they make sacrifices.

Report
 LeeWood 28 Jun 2020
In reply to SteveX:

> However it still seems to shift the emphasis to someone else, in this case "millionaires", not that I am suggesting this is your intention. 

In the context of this post - no - I was not trying to slam the millionaires again. We westerners are largely the polluters in the global panorama. But we are handicapped and dis-empowered in doing the right thing.

The handicap has historical origins but is largely perpetuated by the millionaires ... or more likely the multi-millionaires / ultra-rich from the Davos-stratosphere.

To do the 'right thing' w r t travel we must accept that all has been made too easy / cheap for us (as per energy, water, consumer goods ...), but that worse, air travel has been made cheaper than rail. Bus can be cheap but services have been cur because car is just too convenient.

At the age of 30 I just accepted all opportunities as given - and the world my treasure-trove; but with age comes reflection and the recognition that all those marvellous elements of C21st are not available to all - and only possible at the expense of others.

I haven't been in touch with @KevinClimate for a few years so can't say how he manages his CO2 footprint - maybe he'll join in ?! For myself I limit air travel to one short hop per year, and I try to reason out shorter journeys (driving to the supermarket for a bottle of wine + bag of crisps ! ) . 

It's hard to know what is reasonable because it's all so relative, but if we always look for car-sharing opps and curb travel boredom then we can all make a difference. I have a deep need 'to go somewhere new' - human nature or consumer fashion ? and old known crags tend to lose their spice - but often as not once I get there, I take pleasure in repeating old favorites.

Finally, getting out to *any* crag is several factors more interesting than climbing indoors - at least on my local walls where routes are typically changed 2x per year.

Report
In reply to SteveX:

Can't disagree with that! 

Report
 LeeWood 07:58 Mon
In reply to SteveX:

> I am suggesting that people need to accept that they are part of the problem ,and that they are harming others, and that action they could take can help

But which action ? The question wrangles on - individual v collective action. There is no doubt that individually we can all make an impact *if those actions reach a collective mass*; even if it doesn't - it shouldn't stop us 'doing the right thing'.

BUT the larger action to take must be through government. The larger action is not just switching off the lights when we leave a room - but voting the right changes into reality when the elections come round, and in between the elections, communicating the common need for environmental issues and the need to vote ... the personal becomes political !

Interesting to note the links between Anderson and Klein - both outspoken climate commentators. In this interview Anderson seems critical of Klein but to me it's just semantics - what do you think ?

Kevin Anderson on Naomi Klein's "This Changes Everything" 5mins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32lXVoBl1QU&

Historically these academic commentators have been compiled statistics and presented their facts - what good has it done - why have we not made the necessary changes ?

Why have we failed to act on climate change? Naomi Klein | Guardian Live 5mins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR5fzXeCUDU&

In the year when 'we' are so keen to assert the science of saving lives - it becomes ever more significant to examine this question - the science of saving lives has been documented and exposed now - for decades ! 

Report
 Andy Hardy 09:32 Mon
In reply to SteveX:

Are you giving up flying then Steve?

Report
 SteveX 11:10 Mon
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Can't disagree with that! 


Well try harder.

Report
 SteveX 11:14 Mon
In reply to Andy Hardy:

This year I was being a total selfish eco terrorist, however my life plan involved a world tour next year by train, then go and live in Spain or France, so that I do not have to fly.
If a person wants to climb, then they should consider living in a climbing area for eco reasons.

Report
 SteveX 11:15 Mon
In reply to LeeWood:

I will look at that later, doing some work now.

Report
 jkarran 11:41 Mon
In reply to Paul Evans:

> Yes, a good article. Surprisingly tricky to find out what income level qualifies as "global top 10%", but this helps - https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality the "daily income per capita" graph for 2015 data suggests that it lies between $50 and $100 per day per person.

Interesting, I had the same question and stumbled upon the same chart and conclusion.

jk

Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.