/ New Climate Breakdown Climbing

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Heartinthe highlands on 17 Apr 2019

As a climbing community how are we going to meet the challenges of climbing and reducing our carbon footprint?

Some crap ones to start: 

  • No Himalayan first ascents count unless you travel overland 
  • Cheeky Alpine weekend climbing trips don't count as a globally aware true summit tick
  • Proper Munro rounds are continuous and are done by public transport
  • Adding transport method onto every route tick list. They only count if there are 3 or more people in your car.
  • Hitch hiking scores more points 
  • Everyone only gets one trip,  big walling in the States, subsequent trips get the cold shoulder down the pub
  • Never leaving the UK doubles your scores
  • Never leaving Yorkshire triples it (and the rest of the country breathes a sigh of relief)
  • Etc......
Report
mrphilipoldham - on 17 Apr 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

What about the holier than thou professionals who like to talk the talk, but very rarely walk the walk? A recent first ascensionist in the slate quarries, who chose a topical route name for example, one of their latest Instagram posts was taking a helicopter out to an island for climbing?

Report
Jimbo W on 17 Apr 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Perhaps UKC could host a climate flight pledge page. A page of people publicly committed to climbing and walking locally, voluntarily giving up flying, that would be a start!

Your talk of points invokes the idea of an app, a strava for carbon counting your activity, and the improvements you make. I mean living publicly seems to be the thing with Facebook and Strava, so why not for our Carbon impact, which might also be a focus for a new community to share ideas and joint action. Might also one day form the basis for an exchange of carbon credits?

Post edited at 18:41
Report
DerwentDiluted - on 17 Apr 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

I'm investing heavily into a startup business that is looking at ways of sequestering carbon using energy harvested from well intentioned platitudes.

Report
wercat on 17 Apr 2019
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

Oi!! Oi!!  Arvestin' Platipudes indeed...

No mistreatment of Ma's Soupials! 

Report
toad - on 17 Apr 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Those SAR helicopters burn a lot of hydrocarbons

Report
Heartinthe highlands on 17 Apr 2019
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

Nice one. Great minds think alike. You should follow your passion, cos its all good and after the storm the sun will shine. So we are where we are and what goes round comes round. 

Yours platitudinally. 

Report
profitofdoom on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Good plan, some more,

*No more nylon ropes: home-made hemp only

*Keep in touch with partners only by letter, delivered by horse carriage. No phones, laptops, or UKC

*No Himalayan first ascents count unless you cycle there

*Drink beer only from hand-carved wooden mugs

*No nylon tents allowed: make shelters from naturally-fallen bits of wood

*When camping, no fires for cooking. Lay food out in sun to warm up

*Wooden bolts

*Guidebooks carved onto slate pages

Report
SenzuBean - on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> What about the holier than thou professionals who like to talk the talk, but very rarely walk the walk? A recent first ascensionist in the slate quarries, who chose a topical route name for example, one of their latest Instagram posts was taking a helicopter out to an island for climbing?

While perhaps not the best choice - how does a helicopter ride for 25km compare to an international flight? I'm going to estimate that it's a lot less of an impact.

Report
Heartinthe highlands on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to profitofdoom:

A reasonable first attempt Mr Doom. But you must try harder. How as a climbing community are we realistically going to do our bit? Or don't you believe the forecasts? Or is it all just too difficult? 

Report
mrphilipoldham - on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to SenzuBean:

What does it matter? It’s a carbon extravagance in pursuit of the selfish, ultimately. Besides which, I’d be highly surprised if the helicopter was based at the pick up point - so it would not only likely have a transit to there of who knows how many miles, but then also makes four journeys to drop out, fly back, pick up, fly back so at the very least it’s 100km..

Report
summo on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to SenzuBean:

> While perhaps not the best choice - how does a helicopter ride for 25km compare to an international flight? I'm going to estimate that it's a lot less of an impact.

Lead by example. It's not that far to kayak. 

Post edited at 08:00
Report
summo on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> A reasonable first attempt Mr Doom. But you must try harder. How as a climbing community are we realistically going to do our bit? 

Climb local, lift share, join a club, communal kit for items rarely used... 

Typical ukc post "we must really be doing something to protect this planet, I've been flying to the alps every year for the past 30 years and each time the glaciers are shrinking, it's shocking."

We are the problem.  

Post edited at 08:00
Report
Heartinthe highlands on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to summo:

Good points. Do you think it is possible in a liberal democracy, with its emphasis on individual freedoms, to make a big change? Do we have to ration flights? Ban things? Enforce codes of conducts? Or can it all be done by individual choices through a sort of nudge theory? 

The concepts of limiting travel and freedoms to choose run against just about everything we believe in. 

Report
summo on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Tax fuel more. But make fuel costs for those with longer commutes tax deductible. It's non essential travel that needs targetting. Sort out shipping bunker oil. Put 5% more vat on anything non essential.  

People won't consciously make the changes. We do token gestures to make ourselves feel better, thinking it offsets all our bigger bad habits. 

Report
Clint86 - on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

I've done my last 80 munros only using the train, bike or bus, and it doesn't feel like a punishment. It generally just adds to the trip not using a car.

Report
Phil79 - on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

> I'm investing heavily into a startup business that is looking at ways of sequestering carbon using energy harvested from well intentioned platitudes.

I predict you'll make a fortune.

Report
profitofdoom on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> A reasonable first attempt Mr Doom. But you must try harder. How as a climbing community are we realistically going to do our bit? Or don't you believe the forecasts? Or is it all just too difficult? 

That's Mr. profitofdoom or Mr. profit to you. Thanks Ms. or Mr. Heartinthe highlands

About "Or is it all just too difficult?", yes it is, and it doesn't get any easier. But I've been dealing with comments like that for well over 50 years now

About "Or don't you believe the forecasts?" - I do believe them

OK, I'll "try harder". From now on I'll carpool in my 2nd Porsche once a month, only fly round the world for fun once a month instead of weekly, turn the central heating down to 35 C. in spring, eat no more than 3 steaks a day, keep to 150 MPH max on the M6 on weekend trips to Scotland, buy bikes for the servants, recycle caviar jars, only flush the toilet 3 times, not drive to any shops less than 25 feet away, move to Business Class from First Class every Xmas, and get a secondhand Lear jet, OK?

Report
DerwentDiluted - on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to Phil79:

> I predict you'll make a fortune.

It's a simple yet lucrative process, CO2 + moronic platitudes through a biglie condenser gives pure carbon in the form of diamonds, platinum and Oxymorons.

Report
Heartinthe highlands on 18 Apr 2019
In reply to profitofdoom:

Forgive me but are you not being a bit silly about a difficult subject. I would agree that trying to consume less is desperately difficult. I think that applies to all of us. The attitude you describe is not that uncommon and shows us how hard the task is for humankind.

Best wishes

Report
profitofdoom on 19 Apr 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> Forgive me but are you not being a bit silly about a difficult subject. I would agree that trying to consume less is desperately difficult. I think that applies to all of us. The attitude you describe is not that uncommon and shows us how hard the task is for humankind. > Best wishes

There's silly, and there's irony, which can be effective. The irony is certainly not directed at you, or at Extinction Rebellion

I agree that consuming less applies to all of us

Best wishes to you too

Report
Pbob on 19 Apr 2019
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

It would be interesting to compare the footprint of our leisure time against the footprint of our work activities. My guess would be that the work footprint of those of us in jobs which don't contribute to the overall betterment of society would far outweigh the footprint from all of our leisure activities. At the risk of offending some here, I'm talking about those on Golgafrinchan Ark Ship B.

Report
tom_in_edinburgh - on 11:28 Sat
In reply to summo:

> Tax fuel more. But make fuel costs for those with longer commutes tax deductible. It's non essential travel that needs targetting. 

Why?  Longer commutes are hardly ever 'essential', it's a choice e.g. to get a house  outside the city rather than a small flat in the city.    Commuting shouldn't be subsidised,  there should be an incentive to live close to where you work or telecommute.   If employers really need people to travel long distances they should pay them enough to afford it.  If employers really need people to work in central London they should pay the full economic cost of their travel.   Then there's a substantial incentive not to locate in London.

Report
In reply to SenzuBean:

> While perhaps not the best choice - how does a helicopter ride for 25km compare to an international flight? I'm going to estimate that it's a lot less of an impact

I would guess not too favourably.... in carbon per person per mile. I have no actual idea but i would guess a 25km copter flight for 4 people would be fairly high if compared to a commial airliner carrying 2-300 people going 500miles

.

Report
summo on 14:43 Sat
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Why?  Longer commutes are hardly ever 'essential', it's a choice e.g. to get a house  outside the city rather than a small flat in the city.    

It would appear you've deliberately only quoted a small part of what i said to point score (cheap move), but it then makes it out of context.

In summary. I said fuel costs should be put up to reduce non essential travel, but some form of tax deductible quota for those with long commutes would not disadvantage workers. 

Of course in a ideal world everyone will live next door to their place of life long employment, however for the moment those days are consigned to history and it's cheaper to tax non essential travel, than move an entire factory (with associate carbon costs). 

Report
Jim Fraser - on 15:08 Sat
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

I was going to lectures about sustainability and renewable energy in Edinburgh in the 70s. It drives me nuts that some of the small minds who weren't paying attention back then, and who never knew what Agenda 21 was until it became politically expedient, now get away with presenting as the wise elders of environmentalism after 40 odd years of conspicuous consumption and self-aggrandisement. 

And it does not matter whether CO2 is a real issue, or whether Piers Corbyn's right about the sun (again), or whose ice extent figures are correct. Minimising your impact was always a good idea. And it always will be. 

But do not kid yourself, the march of human progress leaves behind a mess. We are only just starting to understand the cost of clearing that up. 

The sort of safety, happiness and prosperity that the north European model of liberal social democracy can produce allows people the freedom and resources to tackle this. The really big problem is that this model only extends to a small number of countries that are a tiny fraction of the world population.

Only a peaceful world and extensive propagation of stable democratic models can produce results. A century away if we're optimistic. 

"We don't know what we don't know yet."

Report
tom_in_edinburgh - on 15:55 Sat
In reply to summo:

> It would appear you've deliberately only quoted a small part of what i said to point score (cheap move), but it then makes it out of context.

I commented on the bit that interested me.  Not a cheap move. 

> In summary. I said fuel costs should be put up to reduce non essential travel, but some form of tax deductible quota for those with long commutes would not disadvantage workers. 

And I disagree.    We should tax energy and allow market forces to reshape decisions so energy consumption is lowered.   The whole point of an energy tax is to create pain for workers and companies to incentivise them to change their behaviour.  Most knowledge workers could be working from home.

Report
timjones - on 16:33 Sat
In reply to summo:

> Tax fuel more. But make fuel costs for those with longer commutes tax deductible. It's non essential travel that needs targetting. 

Surely long commutes are non essential?

Report
summo on 16:37 Sat
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>   We should tax energy

It certainly needs taxing more to change views, but the question is how. As more cars go electric, it's electricity that needs taxing, but without killing the desire of people to trade in their diesel. 

> .   The whole point of an energy tax is to create pain for workers and companies to incentivise them to change their behaviour.

 But companies don't care about workers travel costs so they won't relocate offices just because of it. 

>  Most knowledge workers could be working from home.

Totally agree. Some improvements in 4g and fibre would help. Plus UK culture; folk turning their desk spaces into home from homes, family shrines. Hot desking for the times when people need to be there in person, core hours etc.. Despite work being online and output being measurable, there is often a managerial distrust of home workers. 

Report
summo on 16:43 Sat
In reply to timjones:

> Surely long commutes are non essential?

Depends what you call long. But it isn't always possible to live next work. It's not that I think commuters need help, but more a means of reducing social mileage without disadvantaging workers. 

I only mentioned it because it exists here in sweden, but it's not fuel related, it could be for a train season ticket. The idea is more to make employment as viable as possible, ie no excuses. 

Report
timjones - on 16:48 Sat
In reply to summo:

Why not a simple adjustment or mileage allowance and leave it up to them whether they use it to commute or live closer to work and use it for leisure?

It's hard enough for the less well off to afford housing in commuter belts already.

Report
summo on 16:55 Sat
In reply to timjones:

Wouldn't that just favour the rich who could afford to live near work, the best schools etc.. they still have their mileage allowance. 

The poor out in the sticks, would use theirs up mon to Fri. 

Not sure how you'd police it either. 

Report
Geoff Monaghan - on 16:59 Sat
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

James has named a new route Greta Thunberg and another, referring to Greta's earlier days, The Invisible Girl. Most comments from UKC users seem to have been written by people who have minds that are never going to be described as 'like a galaxy' but might be akin to a grain of grit. I am ashamed of UKC for not demanding all users sign up to Greta's main demands. Greta Thunberg is the most important person alive on the planet without a shadow of a doubt. She is on a train heading for London where she is speaking at Friends Meeting House (invited by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Greens and others) on Monday. On Tuesday she is at Westminster speaking to MPs and Peers and she hopes to join with the protests in London - they welcome her and you can count on her impact being greater than any other present. In the last few days she has spoken to the EU parliament, the Italian Senate and the Pope. She is the most daunting person for any dodgy politician to face. 

Climbers of all sorts and ages should condemn UKC members who undermine and mock her global movement. I am 66 and I have been on all the Sheffield student strikes and will continue to the end - Sheffield is the UK's climbing capital and we should ALL be out with the young people - they are the only hope for the survival of the Peak as we know it.

Report
summo on 17:05 Sat
In reply to Geoff Monaghan:

As much as her heart is in the right place. Coming from the country that invented Skype, many of her visits should be done virtually and could be broadcast simultaneously on big screens etc.. show people how things could be done, whilst also spreading a message. 

And no, she isn't the most important person. She has some way to go to eclipse Attenboroughs efforts in connecting people with the planet. 

Report
summo on 17:06 Sat
In reply to Geoff Monaghan: 

> - they are the only hope for the survival of the Peak as we know it.

Over grazed mono culture? 

Report
timjones - on 17:21 Sat
In reply to summo:

The rich will always have more money to burn.  Surely that is a good reason not to give them an extra tax incentive to help them drive property prices in the sticks whilst commuting silly distances to better paid jobs?

If the tax credit is universal it doesn't need policing. It's only when you base it on length of commute that it gets complicated.

Post edited at 17:22
Report
summo on 17:22 Sat
In reply to timjones:

> The rich will always have more money to burn.  Surely that is a good reason not to give them an extra tax incentive to help them drive property prices in the sticks whilst commuting silly distances to better paid jobs?

Fair point. Perhaps make that only those on the lowest tax brackets can claim it. 

Report
timjones - on 17:25 Sat
In reply to summo:

> Fair point. Perhaps make that only those on the lowest tax brackets can claim it. 

That would make more sense in my eyes.

I can think of a few in our neck of the woods that commute silly distances to well paid jobs as a lifestyle choice rather than out of necessity.

Report
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

Meanwhile, since I started this post on Wednesday afternoon, there are another 660,000 more people on the planet. Most of them, no doubt, would like a decent house and a car .

' In terms of net gain (births minus deaths), we are adding over 220,000 people to this planet every day, or over 150 people every minute. That equals over 80 million more people every year, about the same as the combined populations of California and Canada.' (World Population Clock). 

I would dearly like to be optimistic, but we really do need to get a move on. 

Report
Geoff Monaghan - on 19:29 Sat
In reply to summo:

It is a great deal more than heart in the right place. She is currently far more powerful than DA. Attenborough said on BBC this last week:

Thunberg went on to speak at the UN Climate Talks in Poland and the World Economic Forum in Davos. In March 2019 she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for her campaign against climate change.

Attenborough praises her action along with others across the world in the BBC film, saying that “there’s a message for all of us in the voices of these young people. It is after all their generation who will inherit this dangerous legacy". Before leaving Italy to head for London, 25,000 young Italians gathered in Rome and gave Greta a welcome fit for a world leader - and as always she made a magnificent speech with her own 'sound bites' - like (after Notre Dame) 'we need cathedral thinking'. 

Post edited at 19:42
Report
d_b on 20:03 Sat
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

I intend to travel to Scotland in a pedal powered rickshaw, towed by a relay team of servants who have been helicoptered into position.  My green credentials are unimpeachable.

If the details come out I will blame the staff and dock their wages.

Report
mrphilipoldham - on 20:36 Sat
In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):

16 times less efficient than my 1.6 diesel, which can carry 5 people including pilot.. 

Report
In reply to d_b:

Pedal rickshaw sounds good d_b. I think the helicopter will have to go. Sorry, not cool in the 21st century. 

Report
d_b on 20:41 Sat
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

But I won't be the one using it so it's fine. You aren't one of those tiresome people who is more interested in results than appearances are you?

;-)

Report
profitofdoom on 00:46 Sun
In reply to Geoff Monaghan:

> ....Greta Thunberg is the most important person alive on the planet without a shadow of a doubt....

Really? You lost me right there. I've seen exaggeration before but that's pretty extreme

Report
profitofdoom on 01:39 Sun
In reply to Geoff Monaghan:

> ......I am ashamed of UKC for not demanding all users sign up to Greta's main demands....

Who remembers Occupy London? 2011 Anti-Cuts protests? G20 anti-summit protests London in 2009? Anti-Trump protests? Heathrow expansion protests? People’s Vote protests? Liberty and Livelihood march? Student Tuition fees marches? --- Who is flying the flag now for those protests???

Don’t worry folks, we’ll be back to Brexit very soon

Report
Lusk - on 01:58 Sun
In reply to profitofdoom:

And you've got Bristol planning on being C neutral by 2030 along with their plans for expanding the airport, how does that work?!

Report
profitofdoom on 02:43 Sun
In reply to Lusk:

> And you've got Bristol planning on being C neutral by 2030 along with their plans for expanding the airport, how does that work?!

Right: not thinking or talking clearly/ realistically. And to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025” (as Extinction Rebellion demands on their website) means, for the UK, no more fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas) - all electricity through wind and solar - virtually no more private cars, flying, truck deliveries, or shipping: 6 years from now

Report
summo on 06:42 Sun
In reply to profitofdoom:

> Really? You lost me right there. I've seen exaggeration before but that's pretty extreme

It's curious, some people's reaction to Greta. In sweden she is in the news, but not headline and no one is talking about her. Her family are known, mothers is/was a singer, father and grand father actors..   It's a bit like one of Emma Thompson's kids coming along and preaching about how everyone must manage with less and do less etc.. 

Nothing against her, but it's sentiment. Hard facts will win the day, business will want to know why they should change(financial motives) and the population in general just needs better science teaching or knowledge, then they will see it for themselves, whilst basking in what is likely to be another warmest year on record. 

Post edited at 06:43
Report
Jimbo W on 08:30 Sun
In reply to summo:

> Nothing against her, but it's sentiment. Hard facts will win the day, business will want to know why they should change(financial motives) and the population in general just needs better science teaching or knowledge, then they will see it for themselves, whilst basking in what is likely to be another warmest year on record. 

Her message is at odds to the IPCC's conservatism where only the most conservative science is reflected in our determination of our climate deterioration, but the most hopeful of human behaviour is assumed in our responses, despite the evidence of our inaction. She is one of the few public figures with a significant stage, wherever she came from, to call this out, which involves a delivery of facts about ourselves, the approach we've adopted to date and tge deficits with the reality; calling out the negligent intransigence of politicians.

I've been away from UKC, and on Twitter a bit for the last few years, which is good because it gives you direct access to people of interest, such as climate scientists. I can tell you that a significant proportion of them don't think we have 11yrs left to instigate significant action as per IPCC. They think we have none and there are a fair few think that it is debatable whether social order will remain within a decade. While other scientists think everything we do matters to improve our chances, the view of scientists about our situation is far more negative than is indicated by the IPCC. For example, tipping points and feedbacks are not really factored into projections, the uncertainty on methane is all to the negative (it could be much worse than we hope, but not better), and we are in our infancy in modelling cloud formation in the context of warming and recently it has been suggested at 1200ppm CO2 stratocumulus won't form, but again, this could be worse and is unlikely to be better. Uncertainty is not our friend.

The framing of deterioration towards 2100 is far more hopeful than this, giving the impression that this will predominantly fall on another generation or two. Greta is helping burst that bubble. At current rates of deterioration WE will see global water and food shortages, and our kids are going to live in very bleak times. Business needs to realise that it isn't money that makes the world go round, its food and water, and if governments cannot guarantee those things, fiat currencies start to collapse and the epiconsumerism that many businesses provide for will become worthless fast. Again, Greta speaks much more towards this apocalyptic message, which is far more our direction than what is portrayed in our relatively sanitised media.

You decry the poor communication of many of the extinction rebellion people over the last week, and I agree that they really haven't gotten comms sorted. Greta, on the other hand is a clear eloquent speaker who is cutting through the BS. Like it or not, she has a stage and is describing the desperate situation we are in pretty factually. Personally I value her immensely for that. Furthermore, it is clearly having an effect. People who i have never heard talk about climate change are suddenly talking about Greta and the need for action. People who I have never seen share posts on climate change are now writing and sharing posts framed around gretas messages. So Greta is educating and breaking into new groups. Schools around here are also engaging with her message and doing climate based activities which is doing a better job of educating some parents by proxy than our media is doing directly. Frankly she is helping wake people up and as such, given the lack of others achieving the same, I think that makes her of global importance even if you could call out the happenstance of who she is and where she came from. Personally, I think thats a pretty negative thing to focus on.

Report
Geoff Monaghan - on 08:59 Sun
In reply to Jimbo W:

Well said Jimbo W. Greta is coming into London today and is expected to speak at Marble Arch later today. I am confident that she will have an impact greater than any other speaker or action seen during the whole protest period. Just check it out later. 

I spent over 2 months in East Greenland back in 1982. It is more than sad to witness the difference today. Lancaster University is involved in 'Arctic Basecamp' based on the premise that the arctic is the 'canary' for climate change. They hosted Greta at the World Economic Forum in Davos - in a tent. Her speech was the highlight of the event, and although DA did quite well, I am sure he would agree.

Report
profitofdoom on 10:18 Sun
In reply to Geoff Monaghan:

> ....I am ashamed of UKC for not demanding all users sign up to Greta's main demands....

OK Geoff, and I take it you'll be starting a campaign restricting the "Expedition and Alpine" forum - presumably climbers should only go on expeditions by bus or train from now on? And driving to the continent for pleasure/ climbing trips is presumably not allowed (and are the Channel Tunnel and ferries still allowed, because of their carbon footprint?) The same applies to the now-essential campaigns against anything in the "Lifts and Partners" forum and also the "News" and the "Articles" sections of UKC which have a high carbon footprint i.e. are not restricted to bus or train trips - when will you start your campaign/s? UKC members had better not be flying (either long- or short-haul) any more on pleasure/ climbing trips, right?

Report
Jimbo W on 10:36 Sun
In reply to profitofdoom:

> OK Geoff, and I take it you'll be starting a campaign restricting the "Expedition and Alpine" forum - presumably climbers should only go on expeditions by bus or train from now on? And driving to the continent for pleasure/ climbing trips is presumably not allowed (and are the Channel Tunnel and ferries still allowed, because of their carbon footprint?) The same applies to the now-essential campaigns against anything in the "Lifts and Partners" forum and also the "News" and the "Articles" sections of UKC which have a high carbon footprint i.e. are not restricted to bus or train trips - when will you start your campaign/s? UKC members had better not be flying (either long- or short-haul) any more on pleasure/ climbing trips, right?

Consumer flying is one thing that is incompatible with a future for our kids and the natural world. It really is that simple. Are UKC and climbers going to recognise that fact and be advocates for a future environment or are they going to help max out utilisation of an unsustainable resource knowing that it won't just be denied our children, but such consumption helps deny our children rights to basics like food, water and life. I'd love to see UKC take a lead. A climate flight pledge would be a good start.

Report
In reply to profitofdoom:

Some of the points you make here will seem incredible, ridiculous and plain daft to the way people think today. However, I think it might not appear quite so daft in 10 years time. BTW, another 220,000 people appeared on the planet since yesterday. 

Maybe the crazies were right after all!

Report
profitofdoom on 10:49 Sun
In reply to Heartinthe highlands:

> Some of the points you make here will seem incredible, ridiculous and plain daft to the way people think today. However, I think it might not appear quite so daft in 10 years time..... 

They're not incredible, ridiculous or daft to me, as I'm sure you could see. I meant it. "might not appear quite so daft in 10 years time", I think possibly 20 years, but I agree with your point

Report
profitofdoom on 10:51 Sun
In reply to Geoff Monaghan:

> I spent over 2 months in East Greenland back in 1982. It is more than sad to witness the difference today....

Good point Geoff, and thanks. Your post inspired me to read up a bit more about Greenland. It's horrifying, especially the speed of the changes

Report
summo on 12:07 Sun
In reply to Jimbo W:

Ok. I give in. I'll follow the ukc party line. 

The activists are amazing. I'm so pleased Emma Thompson flew in, her poem really changed peoples views. Etc. Etc.. 

Right then, now I'm off to find myself a 10 year old 2.5l diesel and I'll drive 7 hrs for a weekends climbing. 

Post edited at 12:07
Report
Jimbo W on 12:24 Sun
In reply to summo:

> Ok. I give in. I'll follow the ukc party line. 

> The activists are amazing. I'm so pleased Emma Thompson flew in, her poem really changed peoples views. Etc. Etc.. 

> Right then, now I'm off to find myself a 10 year old 2.5l diesel and I'll drive 7 hrs for a weekends climbing. 

Don't be silly. You're right that the comms of Extinction Rebellion are poor, that Emma Thompson flying in is a rather overt hypocritical act, etc but I do think Greta is accurate and is cutting through where others haven't. Please can we desist from condemning the whole because of the part, and build on areas that do look like some progress rather than decrying anything that isn't perfect. Afterall, humanity has a rather well practiced tendency to imperfection.

Report
summo on 14:20 Sun
In reply to Jimbo W:

> because of the part, and build on areas that do look like some progress rather than decrying anything that isn't perfect. Afterall, humanity has a rather well practiced tendency to imperfection.

I agree. I was thinking just the same over lunch. The delights of an out of season salad can't be over estimated. 

I'd say there are two problems. Everyone thinks it is everyone else, not them, who should do more. 

And, population. Habit loss is killing more species than carbon. We should forget the human right to have as many kids as possible, religious nutters being against contraception, or religions that condemn women to a live at home reproducing.. and say it as it is. Over population is killing the planet as much as beef cattle or anything else. 

Post edited at 14:21
Report

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