Going Green...is it worth it?

A radical idea but how about doing both. There will be many ways to succeed in this and it will take many different ways to do that.
You could. But if we want to remove single usage plastics, I'd venture to suggest the 2nd is the way to go over the first.
 
You could. But if we want to remove single usage plastics, I'd venture to suggest the 2nd is the way to go over the first.

The 2nd will take time for the plastics to be changed. The first can be done immediately.

It isn't an either/or situation.
 
If only a regularly used liquid could be delivered to your door , in recyclable glass bottles then get collected and re used continually...just think how many plastic bottles we would save...oh ..money destroyed that absolute wonderful system ..even electric milk carts !!!
 
Most people buy the same stuff from the same shops most weeks. That’s where to make the most impactful changes. Putting liability for packaging on the retailer works better than putting it on the manufacturer.
 
The 2nd will take time for the plastics to be changed. The first can be done immediately.

It isn't an either/or situation.
But if you listen to the 12 years left crew, that won't be enough or touch the sides.

Generally. I see the Maybot has committed to some climate change thing, but the overall cost is a £1 trillion+. Where are we going to find that money from? We have a massive national debt and are barely running even now. We can't manage our power creation consistently.

It all sounds very good on the soul, but the "tax the rich" thing won't go that far if we are going to use the money elsewhere, nor the "£350 million" and we have so many people in low paid jobs, politicians say we can't tax the poor, so the tax base can't be looked at. Do we cut services that are struggling to save the planet?
 
But if you listen to the 12 years left crew, that won't be enough or touch the sides.

Generally. I see the Maybot has committed to some climate change thing, but the overall cost is a £1 trillion+. Where are we going to find that money from? We have a massive national debt and are barely running even now. We can't manage our power creation consistently.

It all sounds very good on the soul, but the "tax the rich" thing won't go that far if we are going to use the money elsewhere, nor the "£350 million" and we have so many people in low paid jobs, politicians say we can't tax the poor, so the tax base can't be looked at. Do we cut services that are struggling to save the planet?

Well don't listen to the 12 years crew then.

It will take lots of different approaches to achieve it, technology (development of power storage for example) will be some of the answer, changing human patterns over time will be some of it. Far more energy efficient equipment (ie. like the EU forced for vacuum cleaners etc) reducing energy usage. Maybe artificial carbon capture will be revisited and repairing/expanding peat bogs etc/planting trees to naturally do this.

Nuclear power, for instance, might get a boost if the small scale reactors development succeeds.

Not many would have predicted so much of our energy would come from renewable sources 30 years ago. That is the same time frame suggested here.
 
View attachment 1592

Just a chart.... so how do "we" change it?

Well CO2 emissions in the UK have fallen 6 years in a row according to the IEA with some levels getting lower than in 1888 so something must be getting done. Europe as a whole has managed to cut its CO2 output as well by well over 1% in a year as well, also according to the IEA.
 
Isn’t a massive contributor to the problem airtravel? It would be interesting to know out of all the people who worry about little things like plastic bags which of you will still jump on a plane to holiday abroad thus wiping out any good done.
 
Yes, air travel is a problem.
But even then for any individual, air travel + recycling is better than air travel without recycling.
 
"The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change estimates that the warming effect of aircraft emissions is about 1.9 times that of carbon dioxide alone, due to the other gases produced by planes and the water vapour "clouds" they leave that further warm the planet. "

So.......... massive increase in tax on air travel............. but then lots of unemployed folk in the aviation & support industries.

"A few years ago, Eurostar commissioned independent research to assess the CO2 per passenger produced by a London-Paris Eurostar journey versus that emitted by a passenger on a London-Paris flight. The research looked at actual Eurostar passenger loadings, actual Eurostar power consumption, the way Eurostar's electricity is generated, actual aircraft loadings, actual aircraft fuel consumption, and so on. The conclusion was remarkable: Taking the train to Paris instead of flying cuts CO2 emissions per passenger by a staggering 90%. "

Maybe ban short haul flights when there is a viable alternative like Eurostar ...... but then it becomes a capacity issue.

Unfortunately evolution & technology has almost determined our path.....
 
Basically if this bothers you then recycling is a waste of time if you are going to jump on a plane a couple of times a year. It’s hypocritical to lecture others, whether here or abroad, when you won’t make the biggest change and most important change you could make and stop flying because you enjoy your holidays to much.
 
No. Even if you fly (I don't. At all. Ever. Even in a plane.) then recycling is better than not recyling. Of course, not flying would be much better - and recycling shouldn't make you feel less 'guilty' about hopping on a plane - but doing anything is better than doing nothing. It may be a gnat bite on a very big elephant, but even so...
 
Well don't listen to the 12 years crew then.

It will take lots of different approaches to achieve it, technology (development of power storage for example) will be some of the answer, changing human patterns over time will be some of it. Far more energy efficient equipment (ie. like the EU forced for vacuum cleaners etc) reducing energy usage. Maybe artificial carbon capture will be revisited and repairing/expanding peat bogs etc/planting trees to naturally do this.

Nuclear power, for instance, might get a boost if the small scale reactors development succeeds.

Not many would have predicted so much of our energy would come from renewable sources 30 years ago. That is the same time frame suggested here.
So I shouldn't listen to the angry looking child ? Phew. No Green New Deal for me then. Phew ;)
 
Still taking this in, but it does highlight how climate science is still very much in it's infancy and open to interpretation:

Whilst I'm not a climate change scientist, nor a fanatic (I believe from the reports I have read that anthropomorphic global warming is probable, maybe highly probable, but not proven beyond doubt...….)

......I do know arXiv pretty well, and having a paper published on it does not mean that it has been peer reviewed. Or even reviewed and tested at all. It means either a) you come from a well-respected university (which the University of Turku may well be) or b) someone who's an eligible endorser on arXiv has done so (and I'd wager there are some climate change sceptics on there).

Also.....they've only referenced six other papers. One is the IPCC report, and four are their own papers. They are basically just citing their own theories to prove that their interpretation of the data is correct. A good scientist would work a lot harder to put their work in a broader context.

Again - I don't understand the core science, so I'm in no position to critique their theories.
But if I was a random Finnish dude, want to peddling crackpot theories that had limited evidence to support them, this is exactly how I would go about publishing those ideas!
 
Back
Top Bottom