As Ilkley moor burns we are reminded that climate breakdown is affecting us all.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/21/firefighters-battle-blaze-o...
Wildfires are just one aspect of our new reality, the most concerning of which is the decreasing availability of water, which is clearly happening now, even in the once temperate UK. The endpoint is a potential lack of food and water for us and our farms. As an illustration, UK veg productivity was down 20% last year, italian olive oil production was down 60% and we were having to shift water between reservoirs in the UK last year to cope. Now we have record Easter temperatures on the back of a record February.
As climbers we love to travel, but stopping flying is a key action that has been identified that can help. Obviously this is a decision individuals can make, as well as being something governments can intervene with. However, media also have a role.
Such is the concern around this, there are several ongoing conversations orientated around climate on UKC. Recognising that there are elements of hypocrisy in us all, we nevertheless need to try to do more and encourage each other to do so. Please UKC can you start a conversation about what we can do to improve our collective action as a community. Please will you also consider setting up pledge pages for people to sign up to (eg a flight pledge for climate or a diet shift for climate)? Please will you also consider your business model in relation to our new reality of climate breakdown.
And UKCers, please would you contribute your own ideas of what we can all do as a community and how UKC might help.
Thanks for reading.
One of the challenges is that it's hard to keep a sense of relative materiality of the impacts. This can result in people getting complacent because they have done something which, whilst good, is far from enough - e.g. using less clingfilm.
It'd be helpful to have a scale, where 100 is the average western adult annual impact and zero is, well, the "you were never born" position.
I'd estimate the ranking of interventions would be something like:
Presence: not being born - 100; not having more than one child - 25
Diet: not eating meat - 15; not eating red meat - 5; only local/seasonal - 2
Travel: not flying; driving minimally - 12
Consumption: reduce/repair/reuse/recycle with high commitment - 2; energy reduction - 1
I suppose my point is that unless you do one/more of the big things (kids; food; travel) - which for many mean making unpleasant sacrifice - then taking your yoghurt pots to be recycled isn't going to do the job.
Get the government to better represent us and our concerns? Neither of the two big parties cares that much, yet we all seem trapped into voting for them. So don't.
This needs to be dealt with on a national level, we need to start that with a better government. They have to go.
You ain't gonna fix anything by posting on a climbing website, no matter how good it may make you feel. See the impact a schoolgirl had from sitting outside her government building and join her.
I don't know Johnnie. A combination of my son's passionate activism and reading other peoples'comments on UKC and listening to scientists is making me really seriously think about what I do and how I act.
I am one in 7 billion but shit, I need to try. Its a bit like being under what could be the crux on a first ascent of a crumbly route. All any of us can do, is make one tentative move upwards, a bit at a time and hope human skill, experience, science and wisdom can get us through it.
Otherwise, the crumbly overhang, is going to land on our heads
Switch to 100% green electricity supply. Ecotricity also do green gas. Been with them since I was first able to switch providers (not always possible if renting).
As for voting green...not always an option as not always a candidate and none of the maim parties are remotely green enough yet.
Maybe try to get climbers to dump their vans and use cars instead? Far better for the environment.
I think it's worth acknowledging, as you do, that pretty much just living (and especially having children) is bad for the environment and ecosystem. This isn't unique to humans - any species which becomes a runaway success does it - but we're pretty clearly the worst. To avoid it, we'd have to go into population decline and massively cut our use of resources - or invent and implement new ways of reversing damage (not just reducing it).
The notion of 'saving the planet' gets it back to front, we start from a position of each causing significant damage to the world around us. Recycling, or eating less meat, or using green energy isn't helping the environment, it's choosing to do less harm to it.
We can all make a small difference to the environment around us, but stopping or reversing environmental degradation really can't be done by individual choices, at least not by individuals living modern (that is, say, post-Roman) lifestyles.
To really address this, it can only be done at the level of international treaties and cooperation. And I can't see the necessary huge changes happening that way until things get really, and obviously, bad.
If you just want to do a bit less damage, and are happy carrying on causing a bit less degradation than those around you, then yes, there are a lot of individual choices you can make. This is still worth doing - making an effort to cause less damage is basically all we can expect from normal, considerate people - but let's see it for what it is.
How much credit do we get for refusing to donate to cancer research charities?
How about euthanasia, there are loads of people around here in care homes, who are well past any useful function, but are kept alive just because we can. I certainly won't be hanging about for years in useless state.
As for fertility treatments, they should dropped from the NHS as well.
If you want UKC to take the lead how about: UKC stop writing about overseas climbing and destinations that encourage flying and road trips. And Rockfax stop selling your overseas guides while you're at it. UK climbers go only to your local crag that you can either walk to or at least get public transport (NB EasyJet does not count as 'public transport' for these purposes!).
If you live somewhere like London with no crags either stay indoors or take up something other than climbing instead of driving hundreds of miles to the Peak at the weekend? Or take up bouldering so you don't need at that synthetic kit that squanders resources and causes pollution in its manufacture, Revert to a bar towel instead of crash pad
As with most Greenery, we all know what to do, It's just a question of how much we are prepared to inconvenience ourselves to do it.
I suspect for most people (me included) that's not very much beyond recycling the booze bottles and sharing lifts
> One of the challenges is that it's hard to keep a sense of relative materiality of the impacts. This can result in people getting complacent because they have done something which, whilst good, is far from enough - e.g. using less clingfilm.
> It'd be helpful to have a scale, where 100 is the average western adult annual impact and zero is, well, the "you were never born" position.
This exists (and is pretty close to your predictions!) --scroll down to the chart in the results section for a quick reference, or read the whole paper if you like:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541?fbclid=IwAR34Fo...
You're right about the scale issue. A few people I know or all eco when it comes to recycling plastic and what have you but will taken multiple flights a year just for climbing / general holidays.
I think as well as us individuals doing our bit though the real changes are at national scales, we should go for a 100% nuclear power stations backed up by renewable energy until we hopefully get fusion up and running (which in my view will be the single greatest advancement of mankind since the computer). Hopefully within out lifetimes.
After that we'll basically have unlimited free energy which is great as it's all very well going fully electric with cars but it doesn't really work if they are all charged off the mains, supplied by a big fat coal power station.
Flight could still prove tricky, but I wouldn't put it past us to invent hydrogen fuel cell planes if we can get the energy density. Beyond that it's just keeping an eye on our numbers, cutting down on meat and stop littering / polluting as much and we might just manage to pull up from this ecology nose dive we seem to be in.
At least it'll give the next generation or two something to keep busy with, what with automation and the like gaining ground.
Sadly, it sounds as if the Ilkley fire may have been started deliberately. Police have arrested three men.
Can't say I'm surprised.... Chobham Common in the south has had 4 fires in the last few days - it's hot and dry but not that hot quite a few false alarms being called in as well - not sure what possesses someone to cause such destruction or what they get out of it
> This exists (and is pretty close to your predictions!) --scroll down to the chart in the results section for a quick reference, or read the whole paper if you like:
Well, at least 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year for us for the conscious decision not to have children.
Sort of eclipses going vegan, not flying and not having a car. I might have steak tomorrow
> One of the challenges is that it's hard to keep a sense of relative materiality of the impacts. This can result in people getting complacent because they have done something which, whilst good, is far from enough - e.g. using less clingfilm.
> It'd be helpful to have a scale, where 100 is the average western adult annual impact and zero is, well, the "you were never born" position.
> I'd estimate the ranking of interventions would be something like:
> Presence: not being born - 100; not having more than one child - 25
> Diet: not eating meat - 15; not eating red meat - 5; only local/seasonal - 2
> Travel: not flying; driving minimally - 12
> Consumption: reduce/repair/reuse/recycle with high commitment - 2; energy reduction - 1
> I suppose my point is that unless you do one/more of the big things (kids; food; travel) - which for many mean making unpleasant sacrifice - then taking your yoghurt pots to be recycled isn't going to do the job.
Great idea but I think your numbers are wrong. A vegetarian and occasionally vegan colleague was disappointed that 20 years of that diet and recycling were undone by two transatlantic flights.
Do you have a citation for that? I ask because the BBC is saying animal agriculture is equivalent to global transport in terms of CO2 output.
> Well, at least 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year for us for the conscious decision not to have children.
> Sort of eclipses going vegan, not flying and not having a car. I might have steak tomorrow
I know you're joking, but given the point of saving the planet is for the future then not having children is irrelevant. Having more than proportionally required is bad, but having 1 or 2 should not be seen as a negative if you have a low carbon footprint. The CO2 emissions from my kids are within the easily modifiable range of mine - is diet/reduce consumption/heating/transport.
Also that 58tonne figure can't be right. UK average is 10 tonne /person. I know it's in the independent but still. I reckon somewhere someone added up 18 years of kids CO2. So actually the difference between you as a couple and a couple with 1 child is about the same as 2 adults going vegetarian, or 6 European flights for the 2 of you.
I can't find the exact calculator I used, annoyingly, but rechecking it seems an average UK meat diet is 3.3 falling to 1.7 vegetarian and 1.5 vegan.
Now this calculator gave my colleague 55t / year (UK average is 11? Swiss 6? I think) due to his work trips 3 or 4 to US and couple a month to Europe. Mine was 22t - I rarely do intercontinental anymore. My 36 European flights worked out at about the same as my entire CO2 for a low meat /diesel car / renewable heating. But actually 36 flights is quite high, so maybe for someone doing just 2 Europe trips a year = 1t then going veggie would be more impactful.
The average transport CO2 per travelling adult is much higher than average CO2 meat per UK meat eater, just because of children and those not flying. Apparently 70% of flights are by 15% of people.
So perhaps the message should be - if you fly then flying is probably your easiest way to cut CO2, if you don't then meat is. I've saved more CO2 through using Skype conferencing this year than my entire personal emissions.
> I know you're joking.
Why should he be?
> Given the point of saving the planet is for the future then not having children is irrelevant.
Nonsense. The planet is still saved for the children of others.
> Having more than proportionally required is bad, but having 1 or 2 should not be seen as a negative if you have a low carbon footprint.
Obviously reducing the population of the planet will reduce carbon emissions (other things being equal).
> Also that 58tonne figure can't be right.
Presumably it is some sort of statistical estimate of all future emissions from your descendants.
During last year we went from 2 cars to 1, I stopped eating meat, dairy has been trickier but I'm just about there. I've walked more than a thousand miles since starting to commute to work on foot. I also haven't been on a plane since 2014. I don't have kids. This year's environmental project is providing accommodation for swifts. It all seems a bit late in the day but I am encouraged by the thought of what might be achieved if significant numbers of people work at this.
There was a fire here in February but none are currently burning as far as I'm aware.
Thanks for your recent posts I've been reading with interest.
You should try reading. 1 he included a smiley to indidate humour, 2 you make the same point as me, 3 in irrelevant since not everyone can avoid having children AND the species continue, 4 the post says per year as does the Independent article with the same figure.
> You should try reading. 1 he included a smiley to indidate humour.
Maybe it just means he is happy that he has done his bit by not having children.
> 3 is irrelevant since not everyone can avoid having children AND the species continue.
But some people making the sacrifice of not having children improves things for the children of those who do.
> the post says per year as does the Independent article with the same figure.
It could be the estimated total emissions of descendants divided by your own estimated lifespan.
You have to decouple the CO2 of children. Not having kids should not be a way to reduce your personal CO2 emissions, conversely having an unsustainable amount of children should be seen as an avoidable impact.
> You have to decouple the CO2 of children. Not having kids should not be a way to reduce your personal CO2 emissions.
Why? Reducing the world's population reduces the world's CO2 emissions. So not having children means less emissions than if you do.
What happens if everyone makes that decision? You're not thinking this through. If you don't care about the future generations why take any action? If you do accept that our species should survive then you need the population to continue. My household of 4 has a lower CO2 /person than a couple without kids and the same lifestyle.
There is however a difference as to whether the n children required to sustain the population have the footprint of the most polluting parents or least polluting.
I’ve chosen not to have children, and it’s not to improve the planet for other folks sprogs.. it’s to improve the planet for everything that isn’t a human. Also, I like a good nights sleep and money in my wallet
What you've done doesn't matter, it's just nimbyism. Unless the change is on a world scale, we won't achieve anything. That's why it needs to be a national policy.
> What happens if everyone makes that decision?
Obviously it makes sense for some people to have children, but it also makes sense to reduce the population (and therefore CO2 emissions) by some people making the sacrifice of not having children.
It's hardly a sacrifice I'm most cases. It's a choice. But it doesn't come with a bonus CO2 allowance to waste. Not having children has no impact on the social responsibility of a couple to minimise their impact, which is where this discussion started - with a presumably light-hearted post that avoiding children could be seen a personal sacrifice towards CO2 reduction.
> It's hardly a sacrifice I'm most cases.
And maybe stopping flying would hardly be a sacrifice for many people (though a major one for me!)
> Not having children has no impact on the social responsibility of a couple to minimise their impact.
It could be argued that each individual has a sustainable quota of CO2 emissions. Whether they use that on having children or taking flights would be up to them.
> It could be argued that each individual has a sustainable quota of CO2 emissions. Whether they use that on having children or taking flights would be up to them.
Should the emmisioms from "children" be attributed to the parents or to those of us that rely on their services during their working lives?
>> Also that 58tonne figure can't be right.
> Presumably it is some sort of statistical estimate of all future emissions from your descendants.
That's how I read it. Children don't stop contributing to emissions at the age of 18, if anything they'll ramp up a bit and then produce the next generation of emitters. We've felled an entire family tree of planet killers.
> Should the emmisioms from "children" be attributed to the parents or to those of us that rely on their services during their working lives?
Maybe (indirectly) the parents for non work related emissions, but those who use their services for work related emissions.
How about school teachers who are reliant on thousands of children to earn their own living
Drive at no more than 60 ever - if we dropped the speed limit instantly to 50 as in the fuel crisis of 73-74 we'd see a huge reduction in fuel burned, pollution, tyre deposits and probably not so many huge tailbacks
We ain't got the inclination and the politicians ain't got the guts
> How much credit do we get for refusing to donate to cancer research charities?
Not very much but you do get a very bad conscience when your mother dies of cancer.
Seriously though, instead of not contributing to cancer charities contribute to charities that educate girls in under developed countries. That's the best way of reducing population.
Check out Hans Rosling on the subject, here's one of his shorter lectures here: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hans+rosling+population&view=detai...
Sharing transport more by joining or re joining climbing clubs is one easy option that climbers can take. Do people ever club together and hire a mini bus anymore? Hitch hiking is something else that climbers can do. When I was a teenager, every time I drove (in a shared van) past the Balloch roundabout on the way to Glencoe there would be at least one set of hitch hikers heading North for the weekend. For some Glasgow climbers it was routine, train to Balloch, walk up to the big layby on the main road, get lift to Glencoe/Fort William. They did it most weekends.
For myself, I have one intercontinental flight I must do this year but other that and outside of work, I don't intend to fly anywhere.
> Not very much but you do get a very bad conscience when your mother dies of cancer.
I'm not sure that you have to have a bad conscience about it. My dad died of cancer and I happily contribute to cancer care charities but we all have to go sometime and uneasy about the whole let's beat cancer vibe that seems to be pushed today. Looking at graphs of UK birth vs death rates the declining death rate looks like a bigger issue than the birth rate.
> Seriously though, instead of not contributing to cancer charities contribute to charities that educate girls in under developed countries. That's the best way of reducing population.
That's a compelling thought I'll have a look at it.
Voting choice might rank high on the list, especially for parties whose unsustainable manifestos are to maintain 'more of the same'. But first, FPTP has to be binned urgently in favour of PR.
Maybe if all the management of Ilkely Moor, especially the removal of old heather & the maintenance of firebreaks, hadn’t been removed by the idiotic & prejudiced efforts of the anti-shooting fraternity, there wouldn’t be such a rampant spread of fire.
The day the antis put their hands into their pockets and fund the upkeep of the moor to the same level as the shoot did, then maybe it’ll improve the situation.
Maybe if some complete tw*t hadn't set fire to it in the first place. We don't need more grouse shooting, we need less arsonists.
> Maybe if some complete tw*t hadn't set fire to it in the first place. We don't need more grouse shooting, we need less arsonists.
How about arsonist shooting? I'm sure the grouse would be pleased.
> The day the antis put their hands into their pockets and fund the upkeep of the moor
I'd happily donate to a reforestation fund.
> ...........Please will you also consider setting up pledge pages for people to sign up to (eg a flight pledge for climate or a diet shift for climate)?.....
Have you set one or more pledge pages up, Jimbo W? Where is it/ are they? Thank you
As an aside, are moor fires really an unusual occurrence in England?
I don't think I've seen a year when there weren't several out of control moor fires in the Scottish Highlands.
I particularly remember a huge one in the hills North of Glenfinnan and Corpach in the mid 1980s when I was at primary school, triggered I think by sparks from the Mallaig steam train when it first restarted; it burned for days as we were having a weeks-long heatwave.
The climate's definitely changing, but it seems a bit of a stretch to link the Ilkley Moor fire to it.
> Maybe if all the management of Ilkely Moor, especially the removal of old heather & the maintenance of firebreaks, hadn’t been removed by the idiotic & prejudiced efforts of the anti-shooting fraternity, there wouldn’t be such a rampant spread of fire.
> The day the antis put their hands into their pockets and fund the upkeep of the moor to the same level as the shoot did, then maybe it’ll improve the situation.
...and the fire on the Mournes, Durness and the second moor fire in Yorkshire. One wonders what the land did before it had fire breaks and someone to clear out old heather. Similar arguments used by Trump on the San Francisco wildfires... ...if only the forestry service had cleared out all the brush from these forests!! Well you are right that sadly this is where we are... ...*natural* landscapes must be managed to maintain the carbon sink, they cannot be trusted to be self managing. Even rainforest burnt in Australia last year. Yet over more than a century grouse keepers have been responsible for draining UK peat bogs underming a natural carbon sink, drying out land and enhancing rapid run-off into waterways. And others have set uncontrolled fires in multiple places in the highlands over the last few years. Not exactly covered in glory.
As Summo says, if trees are growable in drier areas, they should be grown. Peat terracing and blocking should be used to renew any areas of old drying bog. But sadly you are right that human intervention will also be needed to maintain this land. I'd donate.
> As an aside, are moor fires really an unusual occurrence in England?
> I don't think I've seen a year when there weren't several out of control moor fires in the Scottish Highlands.
> I particularly remember a huge one in the hills North of Glenfinnan and Corpach in the mid 1980s when I was at primary school, triggered I think by sparks from the Mallaig steam train when it first restarted; it burned for days as we were having a weeks-long heatwave.
> The climate's definitely changing, but it seems a bit of a stretch to link the Ilkley Moor fire to it.
I don't have the stats to hand, but I understand 2018 was record breaking in the UK for wildfires. We've also had them at unusual times, including winter wildfires, because of the dry conditions. Conditions are seriously dry, with an avg march, but Jan, Feb and April all well below average. I dread to think what summer will bring, in terms of fires, but also in terms of water sufficiency.
They could well be increasing. I'd be hesitant to extrapolate too far with that, though, as I think they're more related to dry spells than to warm ones and I'm not sure there's any real long-term trend towards the UK getting drier (as opposed to warmer and more unsettled).
I'd be interested to hear if there was - but I suspect it's too early to know the details of how the consequences of the warming oceans and atmosphere will affect us here. It seems quite possible that more energetic weather could make it wetter, given our maritime climate. (Wouldn't that be a joy?)
> They could well be increasing. I'd be hesitant to extrapolate too far with that, though, as I think they're more related to dry spells than to warm ones and I'm not sure there's any real long-term trend towards the UK getting drier (as opposed to warmer and more unsettled).
> I'd be interested to hear if there was - but I suspect it's too early to know the details of how the consequences of the warming oceans and atmosphere will affect us here. It seems quite possible that more energetic weather could make it wetter, given our maritime climate. (Wouldn't that be a joy?)
I don't know, and would need to check with my wife who knows more about these kinds of things. However, things are thought quite likely to get suddenly drier climatically. Last years northern hemispheric droughts and heatwaves were I understand driven by stabilisation of Rossby waves, thought likely to be due to arctic amplification and global warming. This brings about a weak jet stream, and as a result you get these large continental high pressure heat domes which low pressure weather systems unable to breach. Concerningly, this may well now be our new climate. Which is why our whole concept of water management needs urgently updated!
> They could well be increasing. I'd be hesitant to extrapolate too far with that, though, as I think they're more related to dry spells than to warm ones and I'm not sure there's any real long-term trend towards the UK getting drier (as opposed to warmer and more unsettled).
> I'd be interested to hear if there was - but I suspect it's too early to know the details of how the consequences of the warming oceans and atmosphere will affect us here. It seems quite possible that more energetic weather could make it wetter, given our maritime climate. (Wouldn't that be a joy?)
Also. Higher humidity levels are absolutely expected, indeed, they are the main greenhouse gas responsible for radiative forcing, which amplifies the effect of CO2, methane etc. Where clouds are forming we expect rainfall will be heavier. But atmospheric humidity increasing does not necessarily mean more rain. We know surprisingly little about cloud formation, and some of the newly published modelling suggests stratocumulus will disappear at 1200ppm CO2. It may be we lose clouds sooner. People see the CO2 scale and think its okay we're not too high on that scale. But people don't understand the fact that it takes some time to reach a new equilibrium, and that new equilibrium may in itself involve further decarbonisation because of positive feedbacks like arctic warming, less ocean nutrient cycling, less ocean carbon fixation. Or other positive feedbacks like wildfires converting biomass into CO2, and forests into dry grasslands. A current CO2 of 410ppm may actually equate to a much higher equilibrium of CO2 ppm, say 800ppm, which for all we know we have already committed to.
As I understand it we are starting to experience more and larger extremes. We see longer periods of no rain, hence more moorland fires and heavier rainfalls resulting in more flooding.
> How much credit do we get for refusing to donate to cancer research charities?
Why pick on cancer? Let's get rid of all the doctors, interfering b*stards, sticking their oar in and keeping people alive just so they can go on causing climate change. What do we want? More corpses! When do we want 'em?.......
Yes. In general that is right, and thermodynamically this is just a function of a more energised system. But there is so much we don't know and are just learning eg vis a vis the Rossby waves I mentioned above and the jet stream, which the infamous Michael Mann published on last year:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat3272
And as I said, our understanding of things like cloud formation are poor, and so there are significant uncertainties about how the climate will change.
Why cancer? Because it is the largest research funded area and in the western world that funds cancer research, cancer, with notable exceptions, is often a disease of age and consumption. Given that those benefiting most from advances in cancer care are a similar demographic group that have most benefited from fossil fuel driven economic growth and dumped the environmental and climate costs onto the young, that is at least an interesting juxtaposition. Meanwhile, the burden of pensions grow with longevity and the young have to provide for the climate change and environmental fixes, pensions and a more costly health service with new expensive cancer drugs. Personally, I think it has to be right to treat people with the tools available and alleviate suffering, including in cancer, because this speaks to a core morality of care for one another. But exactly for that reason it is also right to place funding for research against other priorities and compare them. In my view, on the grounds of improving health and reducing suffering, there is no greater priority than R&D and spin-out on measures to tackle climate change, and this at least has the economic fortune of being more aligned with dealing with the environmental costs that this generation must already shoulder.
Sorry. Next time I'll put a little so you know a piss take when you see one
> Sorry. Next time I'll put a little so you know a piss take when you see one
Thanks. I got that. I just thought it was worth the answer anyway.
We're already successfully treating more cancer patients than ever before, I'm not talking about stopping using existing treatments but we cannot afford to keep prolonging our lives.
Can you name any other species that is dumb enough to suppress it's birth rate whilst seeking to increase its lifespan?
> Can you name any other species that is dumb enough to suppress it's birth rate whilst seeking to increase its lifespan?
No other species is intelligent enough to try to do so.
Anyway, I think there is something to be said for fewer humans living longer healthy lives than more living shorter lives. As long as the extra years are healthy enough to be happy.
> ............cancer, with notable exceptions, is often a disease of age and consumption.....
Pardon me but you seem to be ignoring the role of genetic mutations, which are often inherited, in causing cancer
(PS Jimbo W, I really like your reply upthread to Wiley Coyote2 [who said "> Sorry. Next time I'll put a little so you know a piss take when you see one] - "Thanks. I got that. I just thought it was worth the answer anyway." I never get these things myself...... I must be blind as a bat)
> One of the challenges is that it's hard to keep a sense of relative materiality of the impacts. This can result in people getting complacent because they have done something which, whilst good, is far from enough - e.g. using less clingfilm.
> It'd be helpful to have a scale, where 100 is the average western adult annual impact and zero is, well, the "you were never born" position.
> I'd estimate the ranking of interventions would be something like:
> Presence: not being born - 100; not having more than one child - 25
> Diet: not eating meat - 15; not eating red meat - 5; only local/seasonal - 2
> Travel: not flying; driving minimally - 12
> Consumption: reduce/repair/reuse/recycle with high commitment - 2; energy reduction - 1
> I suppose my point is that unless you do one/more of the big things (kids; food; travel) - which for many mean making unpleasant sacrifice - then taking your yoghurt pots to be recycled isn't going to do the job.
I think your numbers are pretty well done. If you haven't seen project drawdown, there are also some numbers there: https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
But these are not always actions an individual can take (e.g. the reduce food waste item - the vast majority of that happens before the consumer can affect this)
They worked hard stretching that list out to 80!!!
Some of them though; ebikes? Bikes are the answer. You get the exercise and the transport. Without yet another battery that you can't swap, dies after so much use and consigns the whole bike to the tip after 5 years.
Food waste. There is less than you think in some sectors. The trimmings of your perfectly packaged supermarket meat, going with the carcass jet washed stuff into sausages, dog food etc.. still better to shop in a proper butchers though.
> Pardon me but you seem to be ignoring the role of genetic mutations, which are often inherited, in causing cancer
The "notable exceptions" I had in mind were childhood cancers, like leukaemia often driven by chromosome translocations, inherited cancer predispositions, like BRCA1&2, Lynch syndrome etc. I used to work on one of the latter DNA repair pathways, so wasn't forgetting such cancer causes at all. I also mentioned the western world, not just because of Western consumption and longevity, but also because in the developing world there are proportionally much higher levels of viral driven cancers that affect the young (eg EBV, HPV and HIV).
> (PS Jimbo W, I really like your reply upthread to Wiley Coyote2 [who said "> Sorry. Next time I'll put a little so you know a piss take when you see one] - "Thanks. I got that. I just thought it was worth the answer anyway." I never get these things myself...... I must be blind as a bat)
I often don't get these things!
> No other species is intelligent enough to try to do so.
I guess that depends on whether or not you think it is an intelligent thing to do.
> Anyway, I think there is something to be said for fewer humans living longer healthy lives than more living shorter lives. As long as the extra years are healthy enough to be happy.
How do longer "hapoy" lives benefit a species or the planet that it inhabits?
> The "notable exceptions" I had in mind were childhood cancers, like leukaemia often driven by chromosome translocations......
Thanks a lot for your reply - and you did say "often" upthread
> I often don't get these things!
I sometimes wonder what I'm missing... and people close to me sometimes remind me...
Just that mate.
I been lectured to several times about my nice V8, from people with at least 3 kids each.
> And UKCers, please would you contribute your own ideas of what we can all do as a community and how UKC might help.
The trouble is, I've seen too many world-ending crises in my many decades on this planet:
*Biggest crisis of the 1960s - Armageddon/ nuclear war, Cold War. Urgent end-of-the-world as we know it discourse was very common
*Biggest crisis of the 1970s - energy crisis (oil about to run out). Urgent end-of-the-world as we know it discourse was very common
*Biggest crisis of the 1980s - recession
*Biggest crisis of the 1990s - financial crisis
*Biggest crisis of the 2000s - terrorism, 9/11
So yes, I can definitely and positively 100% agree, this one really is the end of the world as we know it
Some of those had a stochastic element. Others assisted fossil fuel corporations desire for state aid, which continues to this day, when they knew from their own research exactly how problematic fossil fuel emissions were. The problem is that global warming is not stochastic. It is relentlessly progressive, and stopping it depends on radical changes to existing systems and human behaviour. Get on google scholar and start reading the literature.
> Some of those had a stochastic element. Others assisted fossil fuel corporations desire for state aid, which continues to this day, when they knew from their own research exactly how problematic fossil fuel emissions were. The problem is that global warming is not stochastic. It is relentlessly progressive, and stopping it depends on radical changes to existing systems and human behaviour. Get on google scholar and start reading the literature.
Thanks for your reply and suggestion. I appreciate it
> Thanks for your reply and suggestion. I appreciate it
An interesting place to start reading is the American Institute of Physics book 'The discovery of global warming', available online https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
This gives a sound background to the underlying science and the steps of discovery and understanding.
> An interesting place to start reading is the American Institute of Physics book 'The discovery of global warming', available online https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
> This gives a sound background to the underlying science and the steps of discovery and understanding.
Thank you for the link, that is really helpful and kind of you
> They worked hard stretching that list out to 80!!!
> Some of them though; ebikes? Bikes are the answer. You get the exercise and the transport. Without yet another battery that you can't swap, dies after so much use and consigns the whole bike to the tip after 5 years.
> Food waste. There is less than you think in some sectors. The trimmings of your perfectly packaged supermarket meat, going with the carcass jet washed stuff into sausages, dog food etc.. still better to shop in a proper butchers though.
Maybe if they hadn’t been drained and cleared to facilitate shooting in the first place, it wouldn’t be an issue!
Count me in. Why don't we ask our local friendly Grouse Moor owners if we can return them to woodland sure they'd be more than happy to oblige. Might have to invest in wagon loads of animal traps though in case anything natural and unmanaged happened in them. After all if it wasn't for our blessed landowners we just wouldn't have any Countryside.
There are some good guys out there. Glenfeshie for example.
The problem is they are doing it off their own backs. There is no legislation, next to zero government funding and no CAP support to encourage it.