How are you going to deal with Climate Change?

[najaB]

The thread question should really read "How are you going to deal with the effects of climate change".

You need to be a deity of sorts "to deal with climate change". See what has happened in the last few days on the Pacific coastal region temperature-wise in both Canada and the north-western states of America.

While grammatically that makes sense, if you read through the thread you'll see that posters have actually been answering one or more of three questions: is anthropogenic climate change a real thing, what are they doing to reduce their carbon emissions, and how are they going deal with the effects of climate change.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

While grammatically that makes sense, if you read through the thread you'll see that posters have actually been answering one or more of three questions: is anthropogenic climate change a real thing, what are they doing to reduce their carbon emissions, and how are they going deal with the effects of climate change.

It is said that flatulence from ruminants is a major would-wide problem, but has anyone found a way to answer the associated problems yet?

 

[nlogax]

It is said that flatulence from ruminants is a major would-wide problem, but has anyone found a way to answer the associated problems yet?

Eat less beef. Beef production has more than doubled since the 1960s but I'm curious to know how the growing trend of non-meat alternatives will affect that around the world.

 

[najaB]

Eat less beef. Beef production has more than doubled since the 1960s but I'm curious to know how the growing trend of non-meat alternatives will affect that around the world.

There's also been a lot of research into reducing methane production through (a) diet modification - e.g. supplementing the normal feed with enzymes that reduce methanogenesis (or foods that contain those enzymes), or (b) genetically modifying either the cow or its gut bacteria so that they are able to more completely digest the grass. This has the advantage of increasing their efficiency as solar batteries.*

*From an energy perspective, that's what a cow is: a device that converts a low-density solar energy store (grass) into a more dense form (beef).

 

[AlterEgo]

One thing which could help significantly with worldwide emissions would be to educate girls.

It may sound odd, but women who are educated (and not in the west) have an average of 3 children whilst those who are uneducated have an average of 6.

How does that help exactly? The reason “educated women” have fewer children is because they have a better income and are less reliant on children to take care of them in their older years. Someone’s still going to have to work farms in India.

A better social security net is a more worthwhile option.

 

[Dai Corner]

How does that help exactly? The reason “educated women” have fewer children is because they have a better income and are less reliant on children to take care of them in their older years. Someone’s still going to have to work farms in India.

A better social security net is a more worthwhile option.

Presumably the uneducated boys/men?

 

[birchesgreen]

Improving the survival of newborn babies and children is a key thing too, families have less children if they are to be fairly sure they'll survive into adulthood.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

While grammatically that makes sense, if you read through the thread you'll see that posters have actually been answering one or more of three questions: is anthropogenic climate change a real thing, what are they doing to reduce their carbon emissions, and how are they going deal with the effects of climate change.

Indeed. I think the intention of this thread was to ask what people were personally doing or intending to do to mitigate climate change/deal with the effects in their own lives. And looking back, the thread did generally stay on that topic for about the first 25 posts. Then a couple of people posted stuff that erred towards climate denial, other people responded to that - and so all hell broke loose and the thread is now where it is

To answer the original question, my main personal contribution is that I got rid of my car about 3 years ago, and have avoided driving since then. And next time I need to move/buy a house, I'll be careful to avoid anywhere near a flood plain or that might be subject to coastal erosion.

 

[DarloRich]

My contribution: Burn everything asap. Get it over with

Sadly the pandemic and previously poor local train service reliability means I now have a car. A dirty diesel car This means I am going to have to try and improve in other areas.

Luckily I live in an area where food waste and garden waste is taken for recycling into either power station slurry or pig food. I also recycle everything and again I live in an area where the council will take paper, card, plastic, glass and metal which is great. This means I only need to put out a black sack every other week and that is mostly none recyclable plastic which drives me mad.

Being northern I also hate central heating so have that off most of the year meaning I don't burn up as much gas as cockneys need to. I don't put much effort into where I buy my household gas and electric from. My main driver is price. If green energy is more expensive I wont buy it. Why is the green option not made much cheaper?

Food wise I try to buy local as much as possible but often it isn't really an option. Mostly at the supermarket you can decide between UK or other. You might get better control at a local farmers market but that cant be relied on for real world use. I wont stop eating meat and cant pretend that I will. I like meat. I will continue to like meat, especially beef and bacon. I would like that to be local meat but that is the same as above.

I would love to get an electric car because I think they are now just about able to deliver the range where my life would not be made harder but I just cant see how it can work in my house which is a terrace that opens onto the street. Parking next to a charger could not be guaranteed and, again, why are they not miles cheaper than petrol or diesel?

Travel wise I now drive much more than I did. I rarely fly so don't feel I create that much damage when I do. Longer distance is will always look to take the train but since taking up driving again both the cost of the train and the ease of the car have been thrown into sharp focus. The car is cheaper, more flexible and easier on a straight journey by journey comparison. Why is that?

I never use the bus if I can avoid it. I seem to be the only one paying and, once again, paying a lot for not very much! The clientele is variable as well!

I don't think governments are serious about this frankly.

 

[brad465]

Eat less beef. Beef production has more than doubled since the 1960s but I'm curious to know how the growing trend of non-meat alternatives will affect that around the world.

There's also been a lot of research into reducing methane production through (a) diet modification - e.g. supplementing the normal feed with enzymes that reduce methanogenesis (or foods that contain those enzymes), or (b) genetically modifying either the cow or its gut bacteria so that they are able to more completely digest the grass. This has the advantage of increasing their efficiency as solar batteries.*

*From an energy perspective, that's what a cow is: a device that converts a low-density solar energy store (grass) into a more dense form (beef).

This chart shows Beef is the runaway worst food for GG emissions:

You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local

“Eat local” is a common recommendation to reduce your diet's carbon footprint. How does the impact of what you eat compare to where it comes from?

ourworldindata.org

Notice though that Pig and Poultry are not that intensive, so if one wants to switch their diet to be greener being a vegetarian isn't essential.

 

[DarloRich]

PS I am also tight therefore i turn off and unplug EVERYTING even the microwave. I don't need to pay for the clock. I leave nothing on standby.

I try to limit my water use by only showering once or twice a month Seriously, I do things like not running the taps while cleaning my teeth and I try to save the cold water run out while the boiler spins up so that doesn't go to waste.

I don't have solar but my house is insulated to within an inch of its life to keep as much of my money inside the house as possible. I would like solar but the costs of installation aren't helpful. Again, why is this?

 

[Domh245]

Sadly the pandemic and previously poor local train service reliability means I now have a car. A dirty diesel car

Diesel is good (compared to petrol) for CO2, it's everything else that comes out the tailpipe where it falls down, but this is slightly less of an issue away from urban areas

Why is the green option not made much cheaper?

Economics of supply and demand. Relatively limited amounts of sustainable energy production, and high demand for it (lots of companies and people wanting to 'do the right thing' and only buy green electricity - noting that it's still all rather a bit of an accounting fudge) means prices go up. Only real solution is to keep on adding sustainable generation capacity

Similar with PV panels unfortunately, though this is compounded by the cost of the panels being affected by pandemic/logistics disruption as well. EVs are expensive mostly because batteries are very expensive to manufacture at the moment

 

[The Ham]

How does that help exactly? The reason “educated women” have fewer children is because they have a better income and are less reliant on children to take care of them in their older years. Someone’s still going to have to work farms in India.

A better social security net is a more worthwhile option.

Why would we need as many people working on farms of there's fewer people? Likewise do we actually need that number of people working the land (even if we aren't assuming that they move over to having expensive equipment to aid with food production)?

Anyway, there's educated and educated. It's likely to improve things if people are educated to (say) 15 which gives them the skills and knowledge to farm more efficiently. I would fully agree that we certainly don't need everyone (or even the majority) to be educated to 21.

 

[AlterEgo]

Presumably the uneducated boys/men?

On their own?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2021 ==

Why would we need as many people working on farms of there's fewer people? Likewise do we actually need that number of people working the land (even if we aren't assuming that they move over to having expensive equipment to aid with food production)?

Anyway, there's educated and educated. It's likely to improve things if people are educated to (say) 15 which gives them the skills and knowledge to farm more efficiently. I would fully agree that we certainly don't need everyone (or even the majority) to be educated to 21.

Fewer people? In India and the developing world?

 

[DarloRich]

Economics of supply and demand. Relatively limited amounts of sustainable energy production, and high demand for it (lots of companies and people wanting to 'do the right thing' and only buy green electricity - noting that it's still all rather a bit of an accounting fudge) means prices go up. Only real solution is to keep on adding sustainable generation capacity

Similar with PV panels unfortunately, though this is compounded by the cost of the panels being affected by pandemic/logistics disruption as well. EVs are expensive mostly because batteries are very expensive to manufacture at the moment

in an ideal world they would be subsidised to make them more attractive

 

[ABB125]

PS I am also tight therefore i turn off and unplug EVERYTING even the microwave. I don't need to pay for the clock. I leave nothing on standby.

That would be my approach! Though I wouldn't go quite as far as unplugging everything...

 

[Bevan Price]

To add to that, not only is there an acute shortage of smaller homes for single people and single parent families, but there are very few better quality one and two bedroom homes (particularly bungalows) that older folk might downsize to. Three, four and five bedroom houses being built near me at huge prices and new homes are often very poorly built. Builders want to make as much brass as they can, that means detached houses with several bedrooms with ensuites even if the distance between them is a cigarette paper. Older people won't downsize, incurring removal costs, to a smaller house if a suitable one does not exist and even if it did they end up not actually releasing any money due to having to replace furniture which won't fit into smaller house.

In this area, downsizing would probably mean moving from a house in a reasonably pleasant area with a reasonably sized garden to an elderly terraced house in a less pleasant area, and not much more than a tiny yard at the back.

 

[The Ham]

On their own?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jul 2021 ==


Fewer people? In India and the developing world?

Why not fewer people?

If we end up with better educated people who then have fewer children then then it's likely.

Even without it, there's models which predict shrinking worldwide population by circa 2065 due to reduced fertility rates.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why not fewer people?

If we end up with better educated people who then have fewer children then then it's likely.

Even without it, there's models which predict shrinking worldwide population by circa 2065 due to reduced fertility rates.

Why would any of that be a good thing?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am not in favour of pontificating about how other countries, especially those areas that the media call "third world countries", as it smacks of still believing half the world is still covered red on the map of the world. Other countries have their own cultural beliefs, some from following adherence to religions, and whilst some of those beliefs offend our niceties, such as FGM and marriage of young girls at an age that causes horror to some charities with TV advertisements, I think that those countries should be at liberty to carry on as normal.

A specific example current in world news today is that of Afghanistan, where "coalition" military forces are now withdrawing and the Taliban are gradually reclaiming the territories they lost previously. The previous major power incursion by a large power there was that of the Soviet Union, where their aim was the imposition of a Communist regime and they too decided to withdraw, having suffered military troop deaths that were unacceptable. A specific British TV charity advertisement talks of young girls in far-off lands receiving schooling and being respected by boys, but the reality is that both in Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan, where a very strict adherence to a very conservative form of Islam is taught to what are rural village communities, that aspiration is doomed to failure.

 

[birchesgreen]

I am not in favour of pontificating about how other countries, especially those areas that the media call "third world countries", as it smacks of still believing half the world is still covered red on the map of the world. Other countries have their own cultural beliefs, some from following adherence to religions, and whilst some of those beliefs offend our niceties, such as FGM and marriage of young girls at an age that causes horror to some charities with TV advertisements, I think that those countries should be at liberty to carry on as normal.

Does that include massacres too?

 

[najaB]

A specific British TV charity advertisement talks of young girls in far-off lands receiving schooling and being respected by boys, but the reality is that both in Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan, where a very strict adherence to a very conservative form of Islam is taught to what are rural village communities, that aspiration is doomed to failure.

Those same attitudes towards women were prevalent in "the West" within the last couple of generations. Societies can and do change, when enough people are fed up with the status quo.

 

[The Ham]

Why would any of that be a good thing?

Is it a good thing that the population just keeps on growing?

Given that we live on a planet with limitations and to what it can support and limited scope to travel elsewhere a faint population could resolve many issues.

However for those who are unable to have children due to fertility issues, it's only ever going to be a bad thing.

Those same attitudes towards women were prevalent in "the West" within the last couple of generations. Societies can and do change, when enough people are fed up with the status quo.

Indeed, you probably don't have to go back too far before the general view would be closer to the Taliban than ours and certainly for the majority of Christian history.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Does that include massacres too?

That has been the outcome over the millennia, it's nothing new. History teaches both everything and nothing. In 1066, there was a massacre of the Jews in Granada.

 

[najaB]

While it's impossible to link a single event to climate change, the fact that we're seeing more extreme events more frequently makes it difficult to argue that there isn't something happening.

Adding to the list, the record floods in Germany/Western Europe: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57846200

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it a good thing that the population just keeps on growing?

Given that we live on a planet with limitations and to what it can support and limited scope to travel elsewhere a faint population could resolve many issues.

If you propose significant depopulation then this can only arise by having many people having no families at all. I don’t think that’s exactly wise in an increasingly atomised world. Once you reduce birth rates to say, 1.2 children per woman, what’s to stop that falling further? How do you propose to halt children b

However for those who are unable to have children due to fertility issues, it's only ever going to be a bad thing.

Why would that only ever be a bad thing?

 

[WAB]

 

[The Ham]

If you propose significant depopulation then this can only arise by having many people having no families at all. I don’t think that’s exactly wise in an increasingly atomised world. Once you reduce birth rates to say, 1.2 children per woman, what’s to stop that falling further? How do you propose to halt children b

Why would that only ever be a bad thing?

I suspect that I've not been clear, I wasn't saying that post mid century we should be reducing population numbers, I was saying that there's some models where (due to falling fertility) the population would be falling on its own.

As such is not a proposal, rather an observation.

As to people not being able to have children when they want to have them being a bad thing, maybe not for society at large (unless it becomes a significant issue), however for those individuals the heartbreak and impact on their lives in the trying (which can include significant financial cost) it's not something that should be wished on anyone.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2021 ==

View attachment 99746

Indeed.

Having been to a busy petrol station on a still day (the first time in a long while) recently I requested just how foul the smell was. Just because we're used to something doesn't mean that there's a better way of doing things.

Even if we didn't have climate change and there was plentiful oil supplies, moving to electric cars would still provide us with benefits.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is it not the case that China has now relaxed its "one child per family" edict?

 

[The Ham]

Is it not the case that China has now relaxed its "one child per family" edict?

It is, in part because of reducing numbers of children, however even before that rural families could have more than one.