Greta Thunberg

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

34 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There's all sorts of things you're already banned from buying because your access to them is deemed detrimental to society - guns, drugs, poisons, etc, etc, etc. And yet some people have the ability to access and purchase those things that you don't.

Why couldn't flying also be added to that list? There would be nothing Soviet Union about it.

 

But there is a clear and huge difference between those things, it's a false equivalnce. Those things are banned for everybody (army and hospitals etc exempt obv), or in the case of cigs and alcohol, by age limit, but as soon as you get to 18 you can buy those things - unless the age limit for those things have changed, I don't know. There's a huge difference between selling flights to everyone, and only letting a select few use them, which is very Soviet thinking - the buying and selling of goods not available for the masses, yet allowed for consumption by the elite, things like whiskey, caviar, anything decadent or western. There is an elite in socio-economic terms, but they can change and are clearly defined, and if you could still buy those things if you did have that money, not some imaginary quality like status or how many records you've sold. Where would it end? Why not start with banning cars? Do you drive? 76% of the world emissions come from cars (according to the website I linked before), why not push for that to be banned first? There's still massive growth in S. America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia for cars - it's largely untapped. What else could we ban? Ban cruise ships - unless you're in it for the "greater good". You could ban the sale of Amazon products to anyone who earns under 40k a month, and only let the rich buy stuff online, but then who defines the term "rich". I'm sorry, I completely understand you're point, and I'm not trying to be snarky either, but it's totally unworkable, it would cause too many problems, and no one would accept it in a free society.

Greta Thurnberg has a good heart and reminds of what differences we can make as well, to get back on topic, but she'd probably advocate for the banning of festivals on the basis of them being carbon positive, as well as all the cars, all the tents that get left behind, all because people want to have a big party. Why not ban festivals as well except for people who "contribute" to society on some kind of digital points system. It's all very Nosedive from Black Mirror. It's an idea, but one I fear the masses and myself included would reject. I'm all for cutting back on greed and excess, but the banning of products for the majority, while some select few are allowed to indulge would just never, ever work. 

I feel like I can't really say any more about it in fairness, and my baby has colic, can we just agree to disagree?

 

[fred quimby]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 5:09 PM, eFestivals said:

 

My bruv works on a superyacht. Should we all be having one of them too?  

 

why not, or a sister

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

But there is a clear and huge difference between those things, it's a false equivalnce.

Not really. 

It's considered in the public interest to deny you those things. It's also in the public interest to deal with the climate crisis, which might also require denying you things.

I know it's minor, but we've already 'banned' free plastic bags - which is much the same thing.  I think a law has been passed to ban new diesel and petrol cars in a decade or two (if it hasn't yet been passed, something like that will be passed somewhere down the line), again much the same thing. "How dare they take away my right to drive a gas guzzler".

If we won't stop doing harm as individuals, govt is likely to legislate. It's how it goes, and rightly so.

 

29 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

76% of the world emissions come from cars (according to the website I linked before)

not sure that's correct. In the UK at least, the largest chunk of emissions come from heating our buildings, which can be hugely addressed with better buildings and insulation.

But if we did that, and if we address the car problem, it still doesn't mean flying should then get a free pass. We need to be reducing all emissions in all ways we can.

29 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

What else could we ban?

How big is your imagination?  

Fact is that just about all of the consumerism we each partake in isn't sustainable at western levels. It might be long beyond your and my lifetimes, but I'm just about certain the ban list will end up being "almost everything". 

If it isn't our future is war, as we try to kill those who are taking a share we could have.  

Edited September 27, 2019 by eFestivals

[clasher]

It's all nice and fine, every one individual making small sacrifices, but putting trash in different bins and using less straws just isn't gonna cut it. Nothing against the incentive for individual action at all, and it does make a difference, albeit small and slow, but without major moves of major players it's not gonna be enough.

So let's ban internal combustion engines, and plane travel? Well no, not really. The answer is not simply banning stuff, but providing an alternative. One that's not twice the price and half as convenient. And that's up to the people in power, not common folks. 

While we don't have a suitable alternative to flying across the atlantic yet (14 days of sailing isn't it, obviously), the technology for extending efficient and affordable public transport outside of the major cities very much exists and that's what we should focus on, not demonizing air travel.  People will not ditch their cars if taking public transport means losing 2 hours more each day, not saving money or both. We can ban free plastic bags, but as long as we get every item packaged in 3 layers of plastic it's not gonna make much difference.

Absolutely no reason not to do both, but if one had to choose between making small individual steps and advocating for the people in power to do major ones, time would be better spent doing the latter.

[Crazyfool01]

interesting addition to the above post ...Asda introduced the removal of carrier bags in its home shopping operation just over a month ago ... over the last few days we have been asked to bag ... all loose fruit and veg in plastic bags  .... therefore not making any difference whatsoever apart from the positive press at the time ... at the moment im holding out as its not in our training but its made me really angry !!

[Mardy]

It’s a much deeper, more essential shift that’s needed. Beyond flights, plastic bags, any of these fripperies. We need, in essence, to step away from living on a system where growth is seen as desirable or necessary. That means huge changes for the whole economy - stocks, shares, pensions, the entire fabric of our lives is driven by concepts of growth. That means a fundamental shift in how we live, something that inevitably, most people are going to react against on an instinctive, almost cellular level. Which is why nothing that means anything will be done until it’s too late. 

i mean, i’m not some preacher on this, I make pretty much no changes or concessions. Too lazy, personally, and way too self absorbed. Sit back, have a drink, enjoy it - that’s my take on the whole thing. It’s later than you think.

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, Mardy said:

It’s a much deeper, more essential shift that’s needed. Beyond flights, plastic bags, any of these fripperies. We need, in essence, to step away from living on a system where growth is seen as desirable or necessary. That means huge changes for the whole economy - stocks, shares, pensions, the entire fabric of our lives is driven by concepts of growth. That means a fundamental shift in how we live, something that inevitably, most people are going to react against on an instinctive, almost cellular level. Which is why nothing that means anything will be done until it’s too late. 

i mean, i’m not some preacher on this, I make pretty much no changes or concessions. Too lazy, personally, and way too self absorbed. Sit back, have a drink, enjoy it - that’s my take on the whole thing. It’s later than you think.

When a few years of a stable (i.e. roughly zero growth) economy are widely described as "stagnation" and "misery" in the media, I agree we have a long way to go to change the culture.

We can't get out of this with technology and minor lifestyle changes.

Edited September 27, 2019 by stuartbert two hats

[stuartbert two hats]

But way to make a difference is to get rid of that job commuting for 2 hours a day in traffic.

Of course, it's not that simple. We can't afford to take the local jobs, not to pay for childcare and mortgages that we're committed to. The economic models have stacked the deck against us making green choices.

I managed through a lot of work, risk taking and planning to get a decent remote working position. But it was mainly luck and it's not practical for most people. But we should try to get down all of our miles, air and road.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

13 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Not really. 

It's considered in the public interest to deny you those things. It's also in the public interest to deal with the climate crisis, which might also require denying you things.

I know it's minor, but we've already 'banned' free plastic bags - which is much the same thing.  I think a law has been passed to ban new diesel and petrol cars in a decade or two (if it hasn't yet been passed, something like that will be passed somewhere down the line), again much the same thing. "How dare they take away my right to drive a gas guzzler".

But they're banned for everybody,  not just the masses. Clear difference. A millionaire 15 year old would get ID checked for alcohol, just like a kid with no money. How can you not see the difference? Plastic bags were denied for everybody, not just those who were deemed "unacceptable" to have them. What about cars? Ban cars for everybody, except celebrities, politicians and the monarchy?! Can you genuinely not see the difference? I don't think it would work, it wouldn't be accepted, which is why these ideas have to be utilised with force - such as in Russia and China.

13 hours ago, eFestivals said:

not sure that's correct. In the UK at least, the largest chunk of emissions come from heating our buildings, which can be hugely addressed with better buildings and insulation.

But if we did that, and if we address the car problem, it still doesn't mean flying should then get a free pass. We need to be reducing all emissions in all ways we can.

Yeah, I Think it was just for transportation, which on different websites contributes globally anywhere between 15% to 30% of all CO2 emissions. Still, the numbers that flights contribute are far lower than cars, the latter in my view having a much bigger growth potential than flying, which in turn would be the biggest risk factor. Nobody wants to give up their car though do they? Flights are an easy target because it's so much easier to give up flying when most people only fly on average once or twice per year. Obv some people NEVER fly, but then some people jet around four or five times a year.

 

13 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Fact is that just about all of the consumerism we each partake in isn't sustainable at western levels. It might be long beyond your and my lifetimes, but I'm just about certain the ban list will end up being "almost everything". 

If it isn't our future is war, as we try to kill those who are taking a share we could have.  

This part, I completely agree with. If we don't curtail the excess we live at, the SUV when a smart car would suffice, heating the four bedroom house, when you only have a single child, this for me is a far more valuable message. I travelled in the US when I was younger for a six week road trip - the amount of triple-axle cars there was shocking, for people just going about their normal business. The US is one of the worst exmples of human excess and it really felt depressing seeing it all.

I'm curious about the war side though, who do you think is going to start a war over it? Or do you just mean US-GB/France resource grabbing masked as a "moral" war? I think if we don't hurry up about stopping our excess and help to develop the 3rd world, they're going to start moving further and further to find resources, which in turn will put even more strain on immigration, which will cause more unrest socially in the EU and North America. In most scenarios, there's more strife to be had - that is unless, we develop tech fast enough to eat plastic and suck up CO2.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

11 hours ago, clasher said:

 

So let's ban internal combustion engines, and plane travel? Well no, not really. The answer is not simply banning stuff, but providing an alternative. One that's not twice the price and half as convenient. And that's up to the people in power, not common folks. 

While we don't have a suitable alternative to flying across the atlantic yet (14 days of sailing isn't it, obviously), the technology for extending efficient and affordable public transport outside of the major cities very much exists and that's what we should focus on, not demonizing air travel.  People will not ditch their cars if taking public transport means losing 2 hours more each day, not saving money or both. We can ban free plastic bags, but as long as we get every item packaged in 3 layers of plastic it's not gonna make much difference.

Exactly. Plus, there are solutions in the pipeline (no pun intended) for faster and greener travel. The hyper-loop for example, or the vactrain.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

11 hours ago, crazyfool1 said:

interesting addition to the above post ...Asda introduced the removal of carrier bags in its home shopping operation just over a month ago ... over the last few days we have been asked to bag ... all loose fruit and veg in plastic bags  .... therefore not making any difference whatsoever apart from the positive press at the time ... at the moment im holding out as its not in our training but its made me really angry !!

Sadly, I know people who won't pay the 5 pence cost of a plastic bag at the checkout and instead swipe the plastic bags from the produce section and use those instread for free. I don't know if plastic bags have been banned completely now, but this was when you had to pay for them a couple of years back. 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, clasher said:

The answer is not simply banning stuff, but providing an alternative. One that's not twice the price and half as convenient. And that's up to the people in power, not common folks. 

there is no green alternative to air travel, and there quite possibly never will be for long distance flying.

Your version says we do nothing until perhaps-never comes along. That's not addressing the problem.

[eFestivals]

44 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

But they're banned for everybody,  not just the masses. Clear difference.

true - but there are perhaps some very good reasons why some people might *need* to have access to air travel. We don't necessarily need to chuck the baby out with the bathwater.

Whereas it's very probably the case with you or I that our use is not a necessity, just a want.

It's perhaps easier to grasp if applied to cars. Hypothetically we might ban all cars & lorries, but still allow ambulances to operate.

Or plastics. We might ban all plastic manufacture, but still allow it within the medical profession.

I'd say that mass access to flying will end in one way or another, because it's just not environmentally sustainable, or a good use of limited resources.

So if access is limited via a high price there'll be a self-selecting elite of 'the rich' who still continue to fly, for (just) their own benefit. At least my suggestion for how it should pan out is not about a benefit for the self-selecting 'rich', and the benefits would be for humanity.

Edited September 28, 2019 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

36 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

If we don't curtail the excess we live at, the SUV when a smart car would suffice, heating the four bedroom house, when you only have a single child, this for me is a far more valuable message.

I disagree, strongly. Such minor measures simply aren't going far enough - particularly as most of the world has yet to get stuff like a car themselves.

A valuable message is one that goes far enough. A message that ends in the disaster the message is supposed to avoid is a worthless message.

[eFestivals]

42 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

I'm curious about the war side though, who do you think is going to start a war over it? Or do you just mean US-GB/France resource grabbing masked as a "moral" war? I think if we don't hurry up about stopping our excess and help to develop the 3rd world, they're going to start moving further and further to find resources, which in turn will put even more strain on immigration, which will cause more unrest socially in the EU and North America. In most scenarios, there's more strife to be had - that is unless, we develop tech fast enough to eat plastic and suck up CO2.

I didn't particularly have a country in mind for the potential aggressor. It only takes one nutter somewhere.

The UK has voted brexit because the growth in our riches hasn't matched peoples expectations for how they should be getting richer.

Just think how fucking angry people will be when they are actually getting poorer because stuff is being fairly shared.

We need to start preparing our minds for getting poorer and having access to fewer things. Or we need to prepare our minds for endless war.

Edited September 28, 2019 by eFestivals

[Sasperella]

11 hours ago, Mardy said:

We need, in essence, to step away from living on a system where growth is seen as desirable or necessary. That means huge changes for the whole economy - stocks, shares, pensions, the entire fabric of our lives is driven by concepts of growth.

This is pretty much it, nail on head etc etc.

I dated a guy who was a Revolutionary Trotskyist ("Socialist" is used by basically everyone these days) for a year or so. The weird thing was that even though he was pretty committed to the downfall of capitalism (that's an understatement), he absolutely wouldn't have it that consumption needed to fall, believing that a socialist state could save the environment whilst not reducing consumption (through investment in greener technology etc), and that it was the only way of doing so. 

I think that's nonsense, as the technological shift that would need to happen for everyone to consume what they consume now (and more, in most caaes, if you want to achieve equality) would require more time than we have. I can only assume that proper revolutionaries have to say that stuff to sound appealing because, like you say, most people aren't up for the idea of moving away from growth and consumption. 

God. This is depressing for a Saturday morning...

[Sasperella]

On a train from Glasgow to London and two couples (total strangers prior to the journey) are having this exact conversation.... So at least people are talking about it now! 

Although, they seem pretty skeptical about the solutions 

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

33 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I disagree, strongly. Such minor measures simply aren't going far enough - particularly as most of the world has yet to get stuff like a car themselves.

A valuable message is one that goes far enough. A message that ends in the disaster the message is supposed to avoid is a worthless message.

And that'll be the real killer if it ever happens. People in Europe for example already have easy access to low-cost flights, yet still very few people fly on a regular basis, like I said before the average for the UK is once or twice per year. If both the growth of flying and cars continued globally, cars would still be used way more than flights taken, and cars would still be the number one transport usage. Also, if everyone downgraded their car for example - it actually would have a massive impact on emissions, that's just how it works. Around 650 billion car journeys are made per year in kilometres in total, if that was reduced to half, that would actually make a difference. Obv, compared to India, it's nothing, but if they did the same, and so on, then emissions would drop.

But that's where we differ I guess. I still think faith in our scientists and great innovators will find green fuel, or plastic enzymes that will clean the oceans for example.

I think as messages go, they're both valuable, and should be continued. "Excess is wasteful" is a good message and one regularly used on places like the Money Saving Expert - and he had massive success with his message at Christmas time for example, that people should be more conscience. The message that "there's a disaster around the corner" has been repeated since the 70s, and it's still not happened, and a hollow slogan really. People actually discussing how to reduce waste/plastic/emissions on a real world level - in a way they can actually contribute - is a much more valuable message in my eyes. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

And that'll be the real killer if it ever happens.

and that's why it can't. Also see air travel.  

And the only way it can be denied to them is if we deny it to ourselves. Otherwise they're going to follow our example.

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

But that's where we differ I guess. I still think faith in our scientists and great innovators will find green fuel, or plastic enzymes that will clean the oceans for example.

the difference is that I don't have endless optimism that we'll get solutions to every problem any time soon, and that I don't think what we might have in the future should stop us from taking action now.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I didn't particularly have a country in mind for the potential aggressor. It only takes one nutter somewhere.

The UK has voted brexit because the growth in our riches hasn't matched peoples expectations for how they should be getting richer.

Just think how fucking angry people will be when they are actually getting poorer because stuff is being fairly shared.

We need to start preparing our minds for getting poorer and having access to fewer things. Or we need to prepare our minds for endless war.

Endless War. 

Is that the latest Avenger's film?  Has a nice ring to it. 

Well, actually, and it's getting a bit off topic, I think people have accepted being poorer - which is why they voted for leaving the EU. They're happier being a poor King, than a rich servant. Btw, for context, I was a Remainer. The number one reason for voting for Brexit was immigration, or so the polls I read, stated it. They of course haven't been so accurate recently, but it seems fair to say, as almost all of the Question Time panels have been debated around Brexit and immigration. The people concerned with being rich always seem to be Remainers or on the Left, concerned about having enough people to serve coffee in Pret...

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

Just now, eFestivals said:

the difference is that I don't have endless optimism that we'll get solutions to every problem any time soon, and that I don't think what we might have in the future should stop us from taking action now.

Yeah, fair enough. I'm quite optimistic about it, which doesn't mean I don't care, I just think there are solutions out there, being developed.

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, MEGATRONICMEATWAGON said:

I just think there are solutions out there, being developed.

the 'solution' of fusion is being developed.

And has been for the last 50 years or so, and is still waaaaay off being anything useful.

We could fuck the planet waiting for it.

[clasher]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

there is no green alternative to air travel, and there quite possibly never will be for long distance flying.

Your version says we do nothing until perhaps-never comes along. That's not addressing the problem.

No, I'm saying long haul flying isn't that big a problem, is necessary and can be as it is until some hyperloop comes along. And it's not like nothing changes, as the new long haul planes such as B787 or A350 require significantly less fuel as the older models. 

Much bigger problem is flying and driving a car where you could take the train/bus. That has a far greater impact on the environment and solving it doesn't require depending on technology that doesn't yet exist. But people won't take the train when you can fly to greece for the price of Birmingham-Manchester train. 

My plan would be #maketrainsgreatagain, since that is the only realistical way of diminishing air travel

[Avalon_Fields]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

and that's why it can't. Also see air travel.  

And the only way it can be denied to them is if we deny it to ourselves. Otherwise they're going to follow our example.

 

There’s the crux of the matter, how can the rich West preach to the developing world, we’d all love to see the Amazon saved from further devastation, etc, yet how can we tell people they have to remain in poverty to save the planet. This message will never work, hence the compromises required to reach the Paris Accord (Accepting China and India develop their economies faster by allowing huge numbers of new coal fired power stations, and construction (ie the giant new Beijing airport)) mean that the agreement is far far from what’s really needed. Same compromises will happen again in the next big agreement.

Does it take the severest climate event, killing a million by starvation or drowning, or 5 million trying to migrate, to spur real change??