17 year old calls us out...

[The utility cyclist]

Have brother in Sweden, during the 70's oil crisis the Swedish government said all new houses must have ground source heat pumps. Today's Swedish housing stock is almost all heat pump driven.

All it takes is a brave government, not focused on the next election and/or a post-government executive directorship with the builders who lobbied for heat pumps NOT to be mandated for fear of hitting their profits.

Will never happen, the money this government has piddled away just on Smart meters and continues with yet more fantasy analysis reckoning every household has 'saved' £250 each because of this. The costs for smart meters keeps on rising and the 'savings' are simply not there, the moiney could have been put toward putting solar on every public building at least and ground source on new buildings.

Government keep making noises regards investment in the EV sector and the 100,000 job 'losses' if we don't, yet more jobs would be created elsewhere and a focus on lowering energy use and a healthier nation which has far more long term benefits.

[Carlton green]

From the article

The simple truth of the matter is that we do have the technical expertise (though not necessarily to manpower) to change the U.K. for the better.

And what good will that do? Firstly it isn't a question of technology or manpower, but profit. I was recently reading about the great new VW electric cars, this is a company that's been fiddling it's diesel emissions for a decade, their motivation hasn't changed.
You've quoted what I quoted - but I'm not sure you've grasped it. It's a global crisis that can't be averted without a large degree of economic equalisation. The richest 25% (That's us) consume 12 times as much as the poorest 25%. Just have a think about that, 12 times as much, do you think you are in some way able to address that? Can you grasp how much you'd have to give up to close that gap? If everyone consumed at the rate of the US (And Europe isn't far behind) it would take four worlds to support it. (Figures from memory, but they won't be far out) If the west was to somehow get growth under control, what about the rest of the world? Who's going to tell them they can't have what we do?
Happy retirement, do you have a pension? How do you think that's funded? That's not a personal criticism, more an example of the way it is. The World economy is built on increasing consumer spending, that's what capitalism is, the ability of money to generate money. Obviously consuming some things is better than consuming others, but to have a global effect it would have to be a drastic reduction in overall consumption, it isn't going to happen.

I understand your scepticism and your critique is no doubt factual however expecting things to change rapidly and to meet your targets isn’t (IMHO) realistic. Its a case of doing what’s acceptable to the population and persuading the population of what’s acceptable. I would not accept that current economic models and measurements need to be used indefinitely and I have no issue with inequalities between the developed and non developed world. From an environmental perspective we should be incredibly cautious about what changes we enable, support and facilitate in the third world, we blunder in upsetting the local balances that have emerged there over centuries. With reduce, reuse and recycle we in the developed world can live full and satisfying lives with a lighter (and increasingly light) environmental footprint. We can also develop technologies and economies that might allow other countries to similarly live well. Though in particular circumstances it might be limiting life certainly isn’t all about what you have and how you use what you have is typically the more important of the two.

As for commerce, industry and the likes of VW well yes such people don’t necessarily share all of the green agenda and do exist for profits today. To be fair a lot of folk all over the world live for profit and bread today and their philosophy is let’s worry about tomorrow tomorrow. It’s up to us as individuals to research and identify better ways of doing things, to educate our fellow man (and woman) and to give them the tools to enable them to live better lives. Progress towards a better world is happening and awareness has changed, the way to get more of either - but preferably both - is to educate, inform, motivate and empower people.

[mattsccm]

Won' t happen. We in the western world can do all we want but until our population goes back to 18C levels the world can't cope. We got on fine in 1900 even.
Stop virtually all air transport, (so removing globalisation) virtually all plastic production, (which includes most of our modern tech such as phones an other tech,) and stop trying to allow our population to increase.
To mess about won't do a thing so short of a virus killing 50%of us we are slowly stuffed. Sadly the countries with the expanding populations are much of the problem and they won't deal with it.

[PH]

your critique is no doubt factual however expecting things to change rapidly and to meet your targets isn’t (IMHO) realistic. Its a case of doing what’s acceptable to the population and persuading the population of what’s acceptable.

I don't have that expectation, that was somewhat my point.
And it isn't my critique, it's that of the likes of Greta - They are saying what's necessary to various authorities (The EU in the case of this story), who instigate what's politically acceptable to the population (Your approach) and the campaigners say how inadequate that is - That's all in the link at the top of this thread.
You've described my opinion as negative, yet you have not offered a positive scenario where the global crisis can be averted. I don't have one either, then I'm not the one saying it's a simple truth that technology will save us.

[Vorpal]

Pessimists will pessimist and optimists will optimist. None of us knows what the future holds.

Yes, humans are destructive, but I think that you underestimate the capability of both nature and science.

Nature manages better for itself than we generally give it (her?) credit for. And I have confidence that our scientists will figure out how manage and even partly reverse anthropogenic climate change. The EU & some individual countries are investing billions, even trillions in research for improving consumption and emmissions.

We do need to reduce substantially our consumption; we have unresonably built an economy on having closets full of clothes and boxes full of plastic toys for the kids, and a new car every so often.

[RH20]

It’s only a couple of weeks ago that news headlines reported that “experts” were predicting the world’s population would be in decline. This was considered to be a bad thing for the future. Surely this will be good for the world and the environment. Fewer people need fewer resources. We can have all the modern means that are supposedly better for the environment, but solar panels need resources to be manufactured, heat sink pumps likewise, electric cars. All the conveniences of modern living combined with the population levels are contributing to the worlds problems. The human of the species is basically idle, if there is an easier way to do something we will find it and do it. Why walk, cycle x number of miles when one can get into a car and ride. Why spend time food shopping and cooking when it is easier to phone for a takeaway etc, etc.
I am old enough to remember the weekly shop was at the local Co-op, people walked there and carried their shopping home. Not any more, into the car, off to the supermarket fill the trolley and back home. Petrol, diesel, electric, makes no difference, it’s still a car on the road.
Turn up the heat in winter, why put on a sweater, hat or wear gloves when it is easier to press a button or turn a switch, this is the 21st century. Unless we are prepared to go back to living a much more frugal life, nothing is going to change.
Anyway, that’s my rant for the day, I am now going to peddle my bike, now a thought, my bike needed various resources to build. Perhaps I’ll have a walk, argh I need shoes. I’ not going to go barefoot, I’getting the bike out

[simonineaston]

OK - thanks. From this exhaustive & highly scientific survey, I'm going to conclude that it's pointless worrying about the ruin of our home planet for a single moment longer. Quai sera, sera. I am however, literally weeping, when I contemplate the future that awaits the children of my closest friends & relatives, who are, by simple coincidence, all girls (which is nether here nor there, really...) aged between 3 years and 10. God help them - except of course - there isn't one!

[PH]

Pessimists will pessimist and optimists will optimist. None of us knows what the future holds.

In which camp would you put Greta Thunberg and similar campaigners? They're optimistic enough to believe campaigning is worthwhile, yet pessimistic enough to believe that leaving it to science and nature isn't enough.

Nature manages better for itself than we generally give it (her?) credit for.

I'm sure that's right, nature will get along and recover without us.

We do need to reduce substantially our consumption; we have unresonably built an economy on having closets full of clothes and boxes full of plastic toys for the kids, and a new car every so often.

Have you a vision for an alternative economy? And more importantly how to bring it about. People won't choose to substantially reduce their consumption till it's way to late, it's not like we've just discovered this - I went to a Friends of the Earth talk on the subject in the early 80's, when it was suggested we needed to reduce consumption by 40%, I doubt we could even get back to the level it was then.

[Cyril Haearn]

Best to live in a Tiny Home (not on wheels)
I downsized to 35 square meters (plus cycle store) when I retired, that is plenty

Makes me sick to see the big houses in the leafy suburb where I used to live, two people in 200 square metres

How many square metres do others have?

[simonineaston]

small dwelling not going to "save the planet"... wot's need is (drastically) less humans, which, coincidentally or not, is wot's just about to happen!!

[Mick F]

How many square metres do others have?

Our two-bedroom bungalow is 9 metres square.
9 x 9 = 81 sq mtrs

Our bungalow is set in three acres of woodland ............... mixing my figures here!

[Cyril Haearn]

How many square metres do others have?

Our two-bedroom bungalow is 9 metres square.
9 x 9 = 81 sq mtrs

Our bungalow is set in three acres of woodland ............... mixing my figures here!

My new home has higher ceilings than the old one, about 240 cm, I think the cubic metre should be the standard for dwelling size

[The utility cyclist]

Won' t happen. We in the western world can do all we want but until our population goes back to 18C levels the world can't cope. We got on fine in 1900 even.
Stop virtually all air transport, (so removing globalisation) virtually all plastic production, (which includes most of our modern tech such as phones an other tech,) and stop trying to allow our population to increase.
To mess about won't do a thing so short of a virus killing 50%of us we are slowly stuffed. Sadly the countries with the expanding populations are much of the problem and they won't deal with it.

What's needed is a really deadly man made toxin, there's nothing naturally occurring that can kill even remotely close to 0.1% of a population, certainly not the current one being masqueraded as something extremely deadly but actually kills fewer than a good flu year.

What's your suggestion to get population levels down rapidly and who gets to be bumped off, because waiting for people to get old/die off and not replacing them with newborn's to reduce the population enough isn't a viable option as it would take far too long even if you could manage to do it, which I don't believe you could (though UN + EU are having a damn good go in Western Europe)

[The utility cyclist]

small dwelling not going to "save the planet"... wot's need is (drastically) less humans, which, coincidentally or not, is wot's just about to happen!!

Where is that happening? If you're referring to the current situation regards a minor virus strain then you're going to be massively disappointed with the reduction in human beings
Any 'excess' deaths are government induced, deaths due to inaction/reactions to a minor virus strain and removed health care which means people dying from their existing health conditions a short period earlier than expected (as admitted by the governments own adviser Neil Ferguson)
Something that barely registers from a numerical POV (ignoring the government lies) and is less harmful than a good flu years death toll - you have actually looked at the government/NHS released death numbers FROM the minor virus strain right, is going to leave you well short of your 'drastic' reduction.

[Vorpal]

Pessimists will pessimist and optimists will optimist. None of us knows what the future holds.

In which camp would you put Greta Thunberg and similar campaigners? They're optimistic enough to believe campaigning is worthwhile, yet pessimistic enough to believe that leaving it to science and nature isn't enough.

Nature manages better for itself than we generally give it (her?) credit for.

I'm sure that's right, nature will get along and recover without us.

I think campaigning is worthwhile. If no one talks about it, no one will realise the dire straights we are headed for. Even if I think that both nature has greater capability to cope than many do, doesn't mean I don't think we should do something (sorry about the double negatives). And science won't science without funding, which can generally only be abtained through policy initiatives. The EU isn't going to fund billions in in research if people don't ask for it.

We do need to reduce substantially our consumption; we have unresonably built an economy on having closets full of clothes and boxes full of plastic toys for the kids, and a new car every so often.

Have you a vision for an alternative economy? And more importantly how to bring it about. People won't choose to substantially reduce their consumption till it's way to late, it's not like we've just discovered this - I went to a Friends of the Earth talk on the subject in the early 80's, when it was suggested we needed to reduce consumption by 40%, I doubt we could even get back to the level it was then.

I'm no economist. The EU & UN have targetted a circular economy. I've come across theories that demonstrate some potentially more effective alternatives, but I think that the circular economy has been selected as the most achieveable shift from our current system.