I was not happy with this article

[British Red]

Actually dewi we could eat a lot more locally produced food, many farms plough under "excess" crops because supermarkets have deals, agreed long in advance, for fixed amounts of food. They wont buy, for example, excess brassicas, because people want other, more exotic vegetables that are imported.

As for the poverty argument, my grandfather spent, for most of his life, one third of his take home pay on food. He did not spend any of his take home pay on a phone, a television, central heating, foreign holidays etc. In real terms, as a proportion of income, food is cheaper now than it has ever been.

Addressing your rationing argument, there is certainly a case that we were healthier in the days of rationing - certainly obesity wasn't the health issue that it is now.

I do agree we cannot feed ourselves entirely, but we can do a lot more than we are doing, if we had the will. We simply do not have the will. This is my point. My point is nothing to do with my lifestyle, it is that we, all of us, in the UK are unwilling to make the changes that are necessary to make a real difference to our fossil fuel based emissions.

You have agreed with me that indeed most people would not be willing to do so.

So thats okay - we agree

 

[dewi]

I'm not disagreeing that people won't do it and if forced to do it, we'd see a weird hybrid of the mass protests we see in London and the riots throughout the country that happened a few years back.

More so, I agree completely about food being wasted, not only in favour of exotic vegetables, but even just because a vegetable is an odd shape.

But the grandfather comparison isn't a fair one. Less than 30 years ago the rates of the average home were tiny in comparison to now. Homes were considerably cheaper to pay for and in a modern world, the telephone and the central heating are more necessity than luxury. With regards to television and foreign holidays, what would you suggest the masses do for entertainment? The majority of the pubs that were around in your grandfather's era are gone... so what do people do for fun? How do they wind down from the hectic bustle they've been subjected to throughout the day?

What puzzles me about your argument is the majority of new builds have no garden to speak of... many live in multi story apartments with communal amenities (ie driveways, refuse areas etc.)... so where would a self sufficient lifestyle fit into that? And when exactly are people s'posed to do it?

Just as an example... I worked at the other side of the country for a while. I had to get up and be ready to set off for 4.30am. By 6am I was at the other side of the country if traffic allowed. I'd work until 6pm and the journey home would take 2 hours due to the traffic. Are you suggesting when I get home I should then water my potatoes that I've planted in window boxes due to the lack of a garden? Or do I travel 3 miles out of town to the nearest allotment and share a can of special brew with the local teenagers in a vain attempt to keep them from ravaging my newly planted sweetpeas?

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that people can be lazy or unwilling to make sacrifices, but at the same time you might appreciate that having a garden or even an allotment patch is a luxury many can not afford either financially or time wise. So what do they do? Share their bathrooms with chickens? Grow mushrooms in the airing cupboard? Bananas in the attic?

We agree on quite a bit BR, but there are realistic barriers to the average person to achieve anything other than what we already have... and judging those who can spend well over half their day in the workplace or on the road for not running home and planting food in their non-existent garden is hardly fair is it?

 

[British Red]

Dewi, how many times do I have to say that the argument I am making is not one about self sufficiency? Its about willingness to change. Please stop trying to imply that I am advocating everyone takes up a self sufficient lifestyle. I am not.

The changes necessary to drastically reduce our carbon emissions would indeed be life and lifestyle changing for everyone. I agree. See we agree again.

Here is the point.

To stop emitting so much, we need to stop consuming so much.

That means less energy, less imported foods, less holidays. Generally less.

Can we do that and live the same lives we live now?

Of course not, the very idea is absurd. This is the great myth. People want to tinker round the edges and reduce inputs without reducing outputs. Its ridiulous.

If we want to reduce emissions significantly, our lives will be the poorer for it. That is the reality.

The other reality is that we, as a society, will not willingly accept "poorer" lives so we will not make any significant change to our emissions.

Please note that I am not saying that we should make these changes, what I am saying is that we don't want to change our lives, so lets just stop pretending we are trying to do anything significant about climate change. We aren't.

 

[dewi]

Apologies... the self sufficiency side was put in to highlight the difference between your lifestyle and the lifestyle of others... more about time and money.

I know what you're saying, but then we get back into the circular argument about emissions and whether they have any impact on the changing climate. What happens if we reduce emissions and the climate continues to change? Do we look for other man-made causes, or do we accept that the climate will change no matter what we do as a species?

People won't voluntarily opt for a poorer life, completely agree. Nor will they make small changes to offset emissions, because its always someone else's fault... whether it be industry, the growth of the developing countries or the ballistic missiles being shot across the Middle East. And realistically, what would motivate the average person to change?

Our luxury lifestyles come at a huge price, which is why I suspect sites like this are so popular. We're trapped into paying bills, driving to work, shopping at soulless shopping centres and taking pleasure from an electronic box in the corner of the living room. The people on here escape to the woods, but when people happen upon us sat in the woods with our camp fires, outdoor sleeping kits and our knives... they look at us as the weirdos, the oddballs, simply because we're out trying to enjoy the simple pleasure of sleeping outdoors.

For the majority, life in general is arguably already poorer... they wouldn't sleep outdoors, pluck a chicken or attempt to build a fire... they've become completely disconnected from the outdoors... making their lives worse for what some believe to be officialdom magic numbers to grab more taxes... not exactly a huge motivator for change.

 

[British Red]

Yup,we appear to agree (as do most people who have posted on the subject) - people are not going to voluntarily change, nor will any government compel them to (since they wont get elected on that mandate).

So what should we do? Accept that the climate will change (and avoid any discussion as to cause). We should then prepare ourselves to live as best we can in that changed climate, both individually and as a nation as a whole. There are huge amounts the government could do (any government of any party) by switching focus from preventing climate change to living with climate change. But they won't, they will keep on doing a good impression of Canute, and we can see in Cumbria how effective they are at holding back the water.

 

[Goatboy]

We can lead by example and teach the upcoming generations that it's not such a bad way of life. Maybe though it's my East Coast Scots Calvanist streak that has me putting on a jumper rather than the heating and not being abroad in years?
One of the reasons I live the way I do is that I admired and respected others that had done so.

 

[British Red]

<chuckle>, read any of the responses to me merely posting that we could do more Colin. I didn't even say people should do more. I merely pointed out that if we were serious about reducing emissions then everyone (me included) would need to change significantly. People get bent out of shape at the merest suggestion of having to give anything up, be it central heating, travel or imported goods.

No, I don't honestly think there is a cat in hells chance of people changing in the West. We like the lifestyle we have, even if its causing climate change.

 

[dewi]

Okay, how about a lateral thinking approach.

We donate huge quantities of cash to various nations in the form of aid. This aid is s'posed to go to providing clean water primarily, but its usually short term solutions such as village wells and the like.

How about, rather than building wells, we build a solar-powered desalination plant in each area and provide the necessary tools for the local population to build a pipeline for the inland population?

Once the plant is built, it is theoretically self sustaining, and it would allow clean water not only for the population, but also to irrigate the land for growing crops. When the crops begin to grow, we buy the excess from them to support their economy whilst at the same time managing our imports in a sustainable way.

As a nation, we save on yearly contributions to those regions, and we've made a real difference that should last for generations to come. Logically we save billions in the long run and use that money designated for aid to redirect into securing our island both with coastal defences, flood controls and perhaps to use the excess water in some regions to our advantage; water-powered power plants??

We all survive the effects of a changing climate, just in different ways.

 

[David LaFerney]

According to the US EPA most greenhouse gasses are produced through electricity pro-duction, industrial energy consuption, and transportation.

If more energy were produced by solar and wind the total production of greenhouse gasses would be significantly reduced - without excessive negative impact on lifestyles.

But yes significant public policy changes of any kind are almost politically impossible. And yes once global warming becomes so irrefutably evident that everyone sees that it is real and that it is a problem it will be too late to prevent. It may already be. The good news is that most of us who are allowing it to happen will die of old age before that happens. So surviving will be our grand childrens problem.

Happy New Year.

 

[Toddy]

Nothing to do with all the fumes from gas guzzling cars then ?

M

 

[British Red]

A huge amount to do with gas guzzling lorries transporting food, diesel powered crop sprayers spraying fossil fuel derived fertilisers and insecticides to get perfect looking vegetables, ships bringing in fresh soft fruit in the Winter, planes taking people on international holidays, natural gas fired central heating, coal fired power stations and all the rest. No point just singling out cars.

One could ask why we pay massive taxation on cars to reduce fuel use and none at all on aviation fuel...which is of course far more environmentally damaging?

 

[David LaFerney]

Nothing to do with all the fumes from gas guzzling cars then ?

M

That would be transportation.

 

[David LaFerney]

A huge amount to do with gas guzzling lorries transporting food, diesel powered crop sprayers spraying fossil fuel derived fertilisers and insecticides to get perfect looking vegetables, ships bringing in fresh soft fruit in the Winter, planes taking people on international holidays, natural gas fired central heating, coal fired power stations and all the rest. No point just singling out cars.

One could ask why we pay massive taxation on cars to reduce fuel use and none at all on aviation fuel...which is of course far more environmentally damaging?

I completely agree. Better public policy could make a real difference - but someone on the aviation side will have a good reason why favoring them IS better public policy.

I would like to say that the civility of this debate is extraordinarily high even though disagreement on the issue is apparent. Congratulations and thanks to everyone for that. Very rare when this subject comes up in my part of the world.

 

[dewi]

Irrelevant of what causes the climate to change, the fossil fuel argument stands up on its own. Its a finite resource and once its gone, its gone.

Kill two birds with one stone... eliminate the need to use the fossil fuel in the first place and zero emissions...

[video=youtube;QrcGqWcGsds]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrcGqWcGsds[/video]

No modifications needed to the engine for it to run from the hydrogen and the by-product is clean water.

[video=youtube;4AXU2wqQe00]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AXU2wqQe00[/video]

Thats transportation solved then?

 

[Toddy]

That would be transportation.

Using fossil fuels.

M

 

[British Red]

And you get the hydrogen how? People forget that all you do with a hydrogen fuel cell is pollute during fuel production rather than fuel consumption.

Of course hydrogen is a renewable energy and then, much like the much trumpeted other forms of renewable energy, ill informed people think that means "non polluting" when the reality is often that it pollutes far more per kWh than burning fossil fuels.

The point you make on the finite nature of fossil fuels is a good one - they are going to run out and we, as a greedy consumer of power, should be investing heavily in renewables before the fossil fuels run out - even if they contribute more to global warming.

 

[Toddy]

Yes, but&#8230;it's got to come from somewhere

"... the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant&#8212;it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another."

M

 

[boatman]

Puzzled that consumerism is blamed for so much but it is becoming increasingly efficient. With our panels on the roof, not commuting now and owning a bit of woodland that offsets carbon are we in anyway more virtuous than those not in our position? Of course not.

Food waste is so sinful but so what? Given that peelings and outside leaves, for example, are counted into it it is meaningless. I have been more disappointed with the quality from small greengrocers and other suppliers than from supermarkets. What should they do with their "waste" food? Boil it into gruel for the deserving poor? Only the deserving poor of course.

What people cannot grasp is that a truly "green" country would have to be heavily regulated and policed.

 

[British Red]

Yes, but&#8230;it's got to come from somewhere

Uhuh, but I suspect the gravitational pull of the moon isn't going anywhere soon. Or the suns rays or the wind. That energy surrounds us all the time. To harness them we should use fossil fuel to build the renewable systems. All we can get our hands on if necessary. Because if we don't, others will, and then the fossil fuels will be gone

 

[Toddy]

See my earlier point about sun, wind, water and tide and our ever improving technology

M