Climate Change in Morocco. Have I seen the future :-(

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Godwin 28 Nov 2022

I have just got back from the Jebel el Kest area of Morocco, and I was stunned by how arid it was. I have been previously, last time in about 2016, and it is just so much drier than I recall.

On the wall in the Kasbah Tizgouane,  I was shown a photo taken from the Kasbah looking towards the Jebel, and it looks positively verdant, and another from 2018, where it is much much drier, and the same view now, is Desert like.

I was told that they have had no significant rain fall for 3 years and I am pretty sure someone said 5 years.  I was also told that they may have to start bringing water in by Tanker, which is very expensive.

The drive up from Tafarout to the Kasbah is much more arid than I recall, and what I would imagine driving through a Desert would be like.

The weather there at the moment is unseasonably hot, too hot for climbing in the sun down at Tafarout.

This has all made a very strong impression on me. Hearing tales from Somalia, heart rending as they maybe, are on thing, but seeing it with ones own eyes, is something else.
 

28
 MG 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

You hardly need to go to Morocco to see the effects. They are everywhere.

OP Godwin 28 Nov 2022
In reply to MG:

You are of course correct, however this was like seeing and old friend and being shocked how old they look. The people and things you see, day to day, hardly seem to change, but people you see rarely, do, and this was rather shocking.

I suppose the question I must ask myself is what I am going to do. Most people I speak to seem to say it is for the government to deal with, or the Chinese or Indians or someone else, but I see it as something I can taken some responsibility for. But will I?

1
 girlymonkey 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

The thing is, it really is for the government to deal with. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do our bit to reduce our impact, but the big changes need to come from governments across the world. 

If I change my heating to being electric, for example, the impact on the world is tiny. That's not to say I shouldn't do it, but it is very expensive for an individual so many people can't do it. If the government stipulate that all new builds must be built with solar panels, heat pumps, really good insulation etc, then gradually our housing stock becomes greener without the extra burden to the home owner. 

So yes, we should all make whatever changes we can, but the biggest thing we can and should do is push the politicians for real change and vote responsibly.

8
OP Godwin 28 Nov 2022
In reply to girlymonkey:

> The thing is, it really is for the government to deal with. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do our bit to reduce our impact, but the big changes need to come from governments across the world. 

> If I change my heating to being electric, for example, the impact on the world is tiny. That's not to say I shouldn't do it, but it is very expensive for an individual so many people can't do it. If the government stipulate that all new builds must be built with solar panels, heat pumps, really good insulation etc, then gradually our housing stock becomes greener without the extra burden to the home owner. 

> So yes, we should all make whatever changes we can, but the biggest thing we can and should do is push the politicians for real change and vote responsibly.

I believe that to be a cop out. Governments are shaped by the people. Take the fuel tax escalator, a good idea, but emasculated in the quest for votes.

It is a collective action problem, and yes it will need governmental action, but IMHO, too many people including me, so far, push away responsibilities, and blame others, to justify our own lack of willingness to make personal sacrifice 

27
In reply to Godwin:

“Too hot to climb on my holiday in Morocco” says the man who was recently telling us it is unjustifiable for other people to visit their local wall if they care about climate change. That’s some impressive double-standards you have there.

1
 henwardian 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> I believe that to be a cop out. Governments are shaped by the people. Take the fuel tax escalator, a good idea, but emasculated in the quest for votes.

> It is a collective action problem, and yes it will need governmental action, but IMHO, too many people including me, so far, push away responsibilities, and blame others, to justify our own lack of willingness to make personal sacrifice 

At the level of the individual, you see too little action because it's a bit like the prisoners dilemma because each of us can believe that if the other people take action, we won't need to, and we'll personally save money that way too.... Actually, I think you have to factor a hefty bit of the bystander effect in too.

Same thing happens at the level of governments.

Human nature means we are all shafted. Yayyyyy, have a good week!

1
 mutt 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> I have just got back from the Jebel el Kest area of Morocco, and I was stunned by how arid it was. I have been previously, last time in about 2016, and it is just so much drier than I recall.

Yes you have seen the future. The entire region is struggling with expansion of the Sahara. Obviously this is catastrophic for the communities that live on the land that is no longer suitable for agriculture.they are trying to mitigate the expansion by planting millions of trees but as we should all know the local people cannot solve this problem. The solution rests with those in the global north who emit the most co2. 

So can we help as individuals. Girlymonkey has pointed out that changing our heating systems is expensive. Here are a few things that anyone can do with an estimate of what it costs. 

1. Eat more or only fruit and ivegetables, seasonal whenever possible. Cost negative. Will save a few hundred quid each year.

2. Turn down the thermostat to 17 degrees. Will save a 100

3. Cycle everywhere. Bikes can be bought second hand on Gumtree and with a bit of care will last decades. Saves fuel and maintenance on the car but works best If you live close to work. 

4. Work from home. saves as much as commuting costs but obvs not available for everyone.

5. Insulate your roof 540 quid but saves that in a year at current energy 

6. Insulate your walls. Coats Abit more than the roof but govt grants available I'd in council bands a-d

7. Solar panels are very straightforward and save money every day. A 8kw peak system costs about 8k at present. Can be used to heat water and charge electric car too.

 8. My personal view is that international travel is a luxury only available to a tiny proportion of the worlds people which includes over half of the UK population. So if they can manage without flying so can you. Cost nothing 

9. Change your car to a very small a rated vehicle. Cost depends on how small a car you can tolerate. I find that a Ford ka is perfect for climbing.

​​​​​​These are all achievable by everyone with some planning and with a little support from the govt. Individually we can't solve climate heating. But we won't collectively solve the climate crisis if everyone doesn't play their part. The time to act is now.

9
 Harry Jarvis 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> I believe that to be a cop out. Governments are shaped by the people. Take the fuel tax escalator, a good idea, but emasculated in the quest for votes.

> It is a collective action problem, and yes it will need governmental action, but IMHO, too many people including me, so far, push away responsibilities, and blame others, to justify our own lack of willingness to make personal sacrifice 

The willingness of individuals to avoid changing their patterns of behaviour mirrors the inactivity of governments. If it were seen that governments take the issue seriously, there is a better chance that the wider population will take the issue seriously. If governments actually led the way, with informed policies which demonstrate the benefits of meaningful action, the wider population would see change as something to aspire to, rather than something to be resisted.

Unfortunately, we have had successive governments in this country that have the treated the environment with casual disregard, rather than placing it at the heart of policy-making. Action to tackle climate change is a massive business opportunity, and yet we have had successive governments refusing to lead with investment incentives. 

Anyone who thinks the problems of climate change will be solved by individuals taking actions doesn't have a clue as to the scale of the problem. 

3
OP Godwin 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Anyone who thinks the problems of climate change will be solved by individuals not taking actions doesn't have a clue as to the scale of the problem. 

Fixed that for you.

26
 gethin_allen 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Has it made you think twice about flying to Morocco to go climbing?

Your post makes you sound like a person throwing litter and complaining the place is a mess.

1
 Forest Dump 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Looks like you've just talked yourself into a life of activism Unkle..

Plenty of work to be done influencing Government and as a climber you have the necessary skill set to dangle from stuff

OP Godwin 28 Nov 2022
In reply to gethin_allen:

Yes. Full disclosure, I have two more flights booked, and I will be taking them.

However I am feeling really uncomfortable about it, particularly when I look at my grandson, and think of the world I will leave him.

The analogy I use, is I would not own a slave, it is just wrong. It took 200 years to get slavery abolished in the British Empire (?).

I know much of what I do impacts other people, and is a bad thing, so why do it?

66
 jethro kiernan 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

we won't solve this by individual actions, making the right choices as consumers thats just Neo liberal bulls&%t, when things were a little grim in 1939 did we make stirring speak about making the right choices and not buying German goods (that will show the Bosch) did we leave rationing up to the individual, did we leave the Atlantic convoys upto market forces of supply and demand?

Individuals, countries and  communities made huge sacrifices during the war, in Britain they did this under the framework of collective organisation set by our democratically elected government, its worth noting that in Britain of all the countries in Europe there was no Malnutrition or starvation.

There is plenty of scope for individual action on climate change but it is p*&sing in the wind with out collective action being the primary means of change.

4
 Harry Jarvis 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> > 

> Fixed that for you.

How very clever of you, I'm sure you're feeling pleased with yourself. 
Perhaps you might reflect on the fact that as someone recently returned from an international climbing trip, you are not well placed to be making snippy comments about the actions of individuals. 

Perhaps a statement that this will be your last such trip would have more value? 

1
 MG 28 Nov 2022
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> we won't solve this by individual actions,

We need both.  You can't abdicate personal responsibility.  Individually the effect is small but multiplied over millions if not billions of people, it's large.  Saying "it's not my problem" at an individual level is just as irresponsible as trolls arguing the  UK shouldn't act because China's emissions are larger.  Everyone pretty much in the UK, and wealthy countries more generally can make choices personally and professionally that add up to a large effect. 

1
 MG 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> How very clever of you, I'm sure you're feeling pleased with yourself. 

> Perhaps you might reflect on the fact that as someone recently returned from an international climbing trip, you are not well placed to be making snippy comments about the actions of individuals. 

> Perhaps a statement that this will be your last such trip would have more value? 

I don't think calling others hypocrites is helpful. Pretty much everyone in the UK is.   That people increasingly realize this and are starting to make changes is a good thing.  Finger pointing isn't.

Post edited at 10:36
6
 Ramblin dave 28 Nov 2022
In reply to MG:

> We need both. 

Yeah, I broadly agree with this. It doesn't matter how conscientiously I recycle my yoghurt pots unless we also have large-scale collective / government action, but large-scale collective action is going to be harder to get moving for as long as even the people who are in favour of it are still eating big piles of meat and dairy and jetting off on city breaks or climbing trips a few times a year...

2
 Sir Chasm 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> The analogy I use, is I would not own a slave, it is just wrong.

But you're going to carry on using the slaves you've got because you've paid for them.

1
 Bottom Clinger 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> I know much of what I do impacts other people, and is a bad thing, so why do it?

Its worse than that - it has a disproportionately worse impact on those who cause the least damage. Without writing a zillion words - human nature, we appear to be inherently selfish. It’s a key part of capitalism, where we simply consume too much. And it’s why we need govt intervention. For example, air flights are sooooo bad for the eco that they should have a huge eco tax: if your flights cost double, would you still fly?  

 Harry Jarvis 28 Nov 2022
In reply to MG:

> I don't think calling others hypocrites is helpful. Pretty much everyone in the UK is.   That people increasingly realize this and are starting to make changes is a good thing.  Finger pointing isn't.

Given that Uncle Derek appears to know he's a hypocrite I don't see the issue. 

 AllanMac 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Not just Morocco. The more extreme ends of world climate like deserts, polar regions, and low-lying island nations should be acting as the bellwether of the forthcoming emergency for everyone on the planet. But it clearly is not.

In the comfort of temperate regions like the UK, the changes are more subtle - and to the current crop of politicians who live there (and where the wealthiest nations are located), those changes are negligible to them because it's not happening outside their own windows, so therefore it's not happening anywhere. They are still seen by them as inconsequential weather fluctuations, rather than serious indicators of climate change.

Climate change has to be directly experienced in all its fury in order for meaningful mitigative action to be taken by those best placed to do something about it. Or to have sufficient levels of empathy towards those who are experiencing it right now, to imagine what it is going be like in the near future.

 PaulW 28 Nov 2022
In reply to jethro kiernan:

its worth noting that in Britain of all the countries in Europe there was no Malnutrition or starvation.

Britain did preside over a huge famine in Bengal in 1943. A shocking inditement of our failure as a nation. Perhaps, as with climate change, certain races are less important to us.

7
 Luke90 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> Yes. Full disclosure, I have two more flights booked, and I will be taking them.

> However I am feeling really uncomfortable about it, particularly when I look at my grandson, and think of the world I will leave him.

> The analogy I use, is I would not own a slave, it is just wrong. It took 200 years to get slavery abolished in the British Empire (?).

What a strange analogy to pick when discussing how questionable your own actions were! If a climate activist indirectly implied that individual inaction on climate change was morally equivalent to owning slaves then I'd accuse them of offensive hyperbole but if you want to condemn yourself that way then who am I to judge.

Fortunately, the emissions of a plane fall in direct proportion to the level of guilt the passengers onboard are feeling.

2
 MeMeMe 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> This has all made a very strong impression on me. Hearing tales from Somalia, heart rending as they maybe, are on thing, but seeing it with ones own eyes, is something else.

Yes, why not book a cruise to the artic to see how bad it is there?

I look forward to your future posts on how you're uncomfortable about your part in screwing the climate up for your grandchild but not uncomfortable enough to disrupt your holiday plans.

 mutt 28 Nov 2022
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> we won't solve this by individual actions, making the right choices as consumers 

> There is plenty of scope for individual action on climate change but it is p*&sing in the wind with out collective action being the primary means of change.

Firstly you point the finger at government for not taking action whilst completely disregarding the billions of pounds put into wind power. Also the closure of all coal power stations. Yes they could do more but examine your own actions. Have you made any efforts to lessen the damage you do? 

And it looks like you are confusing actions that you can take to fix the climate and actions that you can take to stop actively damaging it. 

Sure I don't expect you to build a carbon capture machine it's beyond your economic capacity. I do expect you to make reasonable steps to lessen or remove the damage you do today and in the future. It's easy to do, see my list above.

2
 dunc56 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

And did you fly there to see this …..

1
 girlymonkey 28 Nov 2022
In reply to mutt:

While I think personal actions are important, the government has the bigger role to play. 

I have made as many changes as I can afford to make (I cycle wherever possible, which is a lot of my journeys, I drive an EV when I have to go further. I don't have kids, I rarely eat meat, I buy as much as possible second hand, I wear jacket and hat indoors etc). However, I can't afford in my current house to switch from gas central heating. I don't have the option of taking public transport to work. I often get no option on buying things wrapped in many layers of plastic which is not needed. Etc. 

The changes I can make are obviously the right thing to do, but they really are pissing in the wind! We need the government to take their responsibility seriously and force house builders to install better heating and insulation, to sort the public transport infrastructure, to regulate on how much and what sort of packaging can be used etc etc. Things changing at government level are the most important. 

Yes, I agree there has been improvements, but there are many others and can and should be done.

3
 MG 28 Nov 2022
In reply to girlymonkey:

> While I think personal actions are important, the government has the bigger role to play. 

> I have made as many changes as I can afford to make (I cycle wherever possible, which is a lot of my journeys, I drive an EV when I have to go further. I don't have kids, I rarely eat meat, I buy as much as possible second hand, I wear jacket and hat indoors etc). However, I can't afford in my current house to switch from gas central heating. I don't have the option of taking public transport to work. I often get no option on buying things wrapped in many layers of plastic which is not needed. Etc. 

I'd say you are something of an outlier here.  Look at the number of large cars, overseas flights, houses heated to 24C, large families etc.  There is a lot more individuals can do.  And, ultimately, it's individuals who vote and decide the government.

 mutt 28 Nov 2022
In reply to girlymonkey:

Sure, I wasn't pointing my finger at you girlymonkey. Your point is entirely valid, i.e. that after you have taken all measures within your economic power then everything else has to be done by government. My list was directed at the vast number of people in society and on this forum who do not even attempt to do the manageable things to restrict the harm that they do. And I'm afraid that making statements as you just did that these efforts are futile does not help. 60percent of GDP is spent by individuals. Better directing how our money is spent is very impactful actually. Government only generates 20percent if GDP so actually to power rests with us.

 Bottom Clinger 28 Nov 2022
In reply to MG:

> And, ultimately, it's individuals who vote and decide the government.

Most/all governments know that the vast majority of the electorate don’t care enough about the environment. I actually think that a key reason why most governments encourage individual actions (recycling etc)  is that it makes the individual feel they are doing their bit (clears their conscience), that the govt wants them to do this, so the electorate don’t push govts for proper change. 

1
 Strife 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Forecast to become very cold and wet in the anti atlas this weekend and into next week. Just as I start my climbing trip!

3
 Forest Dump 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

The more I see the title the more it's triggering me!

You've not seen the future, you've seen the present. The future is likely to get much worse.

But, while 1.5c increasingly looks like a pipe dream each metric point of warming will come with increased negative impacts and take us closer to doom, so anything you can do to reduce your impact is a good thing to be doing.

And while personal choices aren't the whole picture, the impact of those choices can be multiplied if they include how you engage with government and the corporate world..

Rant over

 MG 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> Most/all governments know that the vast majority of the electorate don’t care enough about the environment. ... so the electorate don’t push govts for proper change. 

I don't think that's right - why would a government not want to make "proper" changes?  I'd say it's more everyone pointing at everyone else.  The government vote dynamic is more

Government - we can't do y  because we will be voted out.

Voter - I'm won't do x until the government does y

 girlymonkey 28 Nov 2022
In reply to mutt:

Even if we all do what we can, it is still pissing in the wind without government action. And the fact remains, many won't do what they can without government action. 

Yes, it is our responsibility to vote responsibly for a government who will actually do something meaningful! Definitely that is something we should all do!

1
 Harry Jarvis 28 Nov 2022
In reply to mutt:

> 60percent of GDP is spent by individuals. Better directing how our money is spent is very impactful actually. Government only generates 20percent if GDP so actually to power rests with us.

Government has an immense role in its own investment and in steering corporate and personal investment. In Norway, individuals were persuaded to buy EVs because of government actions to incentive such purchases and disincentive purchases of ICE cars. Government can lead the way on requiring stronger energy-efficiency measures in new buildings, by requiring better travel options, and so on. 

Major industries will not take carbon out their activities until it becomes an economic necessity. Governments do that by rewarding good actions and punishing damaging actions. Individually we wield very little comparable power. 

 mutt 28 Nov 2022
In reply to girlymonkey:

And yet governments are under the heel of industry and corporate interests. Which government can put together the funds to shake up the status quo? We have all just witnessed the markets overthrowing a  government that doesn't put fiscal timidity first and foremost. Government can't even raise the finance for a nuclear reactor without handing over the keys to authoritarian states. And don't think the oil industry will let us govern our way out of this mess without filling up our hospitals and seeing off our elderly before their time. It's happening all around us. I think my vote is the least useful tool I have. We have waited for governments for 40years. No green deal will ever get of the ground. 

1
 Harry Jarvis 28 Nov 2022
In reply to MG:

> I don't think that's right - why would a government not want to make "proper" changes? 

Because until very recently, fossil-fuel lobbyists have been very successful in undermining actions, because a substantial number of MPs refuse to accept action is needed, because action has always been presented as a cost instead of a worthwhile long-term investment, because the business opportunities have not been acknowledged, because 'the environment' is seen as a 'nice-to-have' add-on to policy making instead of being a central point of policy, because we have a very strong pro-car lobby which opposes anything which might restrict private use of cars. And so on ...

 mutt 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

None of the foregoing should however stop us taking individual action to reduce the damage we do. And for those who are brave enough we should take action to overthrow the invested interests in our rotten society.

 jethro kiernan 28 Nov 2022
In reply to mutt:

"60percent of GDP is spent by individual"

I don't think we can get out of this by directing our spending wisely, I don't buy bottled water I think its a total anathema, that's my individual action, Government can easily put a £1 sure charge on every plastic bottle sold. There are a large number of people who are barely able to make it too the end of the week with enough money never mind make informed "virtuous" consumer decisions.

I think There is plenty of scope for individual action on climate change but it is p*&sing in the wind with out collective action being the primary means of change.

Never said we don't have an individual obligation 

 mutt 28 Nov 2022
In reply to jethro kiernan:

I wasn't advocating virtuous spending. If anything spending less is what will save us. But not a lot of our spending is discretional. Refer to my list for how best to spend on the essentials and for the rest just don't buy anything. 

My point was that spending by individuals is 3times the spending by government so don't go saying that we don't have the power to effect the climate crisis.

 jkarran 28 Nov 2022
In reply to mutt:

> And yet governments are under the heel of industry and corporate interests. Which government can put together the funds to shake up the status quo? We have all just witnessed the markets overthrowing a  government that doesn't put fiscal timidity first and foremost.

We witnessed a market reaction to a very specific type of economic extremism coupled with extreme foolishness or mendacity in the deliberate failure to obtain and publish an accompanying independent assessment.

It's not remotely reasonable to extrapolate from that and conclude a British government cannot borrow to invest in projects which mitigate and ultimately begin reversing climate change, so long as it is done openly and responsibly. The economic transition we need to go through won't be painless but it does represent both cost and an opportunity.

> Government can't even raise the finance for a nuclear reactor without handing over the keys to authoritarian states.

It chooses not to for ideological reasons.

jk

Post edited at 15:43
 jethro kiernan 28 Nov 2022
In reply to PaulW:

Britain did preside over a huge famine in Bengal in 1943. A shocking inditement of our failure as a nation. Perhaps, as with climate change, certain races are less important to us.

That is a basis of an empire, thinking others are less than, the famine in Bengal is unforgivable however it wasn't caused by food be redirected to the UK, it was callous mismanagement of an ongoing and preventable catastrophe and prioritising the eastern war effort, both unforgivably arrogant and cold hearted. 

 Harry Jarvis 28 Nov 2022
In reply to mutt:

> None of the foregoing should however stop us taking individual action to reduce the damage we do.

No, they shouldn't. But government action will achieve far more than the actions of concerned individuals, particularly if coordinated on an international scale. 

 mutt 28 Nov 2022
In reply to jkarran:

It was unfunded spending commitments that caused the markets to revolt. How exactly do you propose to raise the 100's bn to green housing and power generation and trillions require for compensating for harm done whilst also banning the product line of most of the ftse 100 companies

If you think the markets will wear that by raising taxes by 5p ? I don't. Too many pension funds are tied to the fortunes of those companies. 

3
 ExiledScot 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> No, they shouldn't. But government action will achieve far more than the actions of concerned individuals, particularly if coordinated on an international scale. 

We are stuffed.

A government will only take action when a party with extremely strong green policies is elected. That won't happen until the majority of the population are impacted by climate change in a severe way, extreme uk weather, global migration, war, water shortages, food shortages and or cost and so on. To reach this stage means it's too late and even action by say 2050 might not refreeze arctic permafrost for hundreds of years. Because of the lead in time even if every country was perfect tomorrow we have likely passed the tipping point. 

Flying to the hottest part of the world, just to play football in air conditioned stadiums typifies the average attitude globally. 

Post edited at 16:05
 Harry Jarvis 28 Nov 2022
In reply to mutt:

> It was unfunded spending commitments that caused the markets to revolt. How exactly do you propose to raise the 100's bn to green housing and power generation and trillions require for compensating for harm done whilst also banning the product line of most of the ftse 100 companies

Environmentally friendly housing is paid for by the housing industry and by housebuyers. It doesn't cost that much more to build to decent standards than to build to the current inadequate standards, and housebuyers get the benefit of warmer homes and lower fuel bills. Carrying on with our existing standards is not an option. 

Billions is already being spent on low-carbon electricity generation. 

 montyjohn 28 Nov 2022
In reply to PaulW:

> Britain did preside over a huge famine in Bengal in 1943. A shocking inditement of our failure as a nation. Perhaps, as with climate change, certain races are less important to us.

The famine was caused as a direct consequence of a world war. Almost sole blame for this famine should lie at aggressors of WW2.

Bengal is a food importer, and imported lots of rice from Burma. Japan invaded Burma cutting of trade routes.

The UK failed to resolve this disaster, but Japan (and allies) caused it. It's clear now that british actions to support the war effort made the situation worse. 

But blaming defenders for mismanagement is very strange. Aggressors are at fault.

Take today's issues. Any indirect casualties of the Ukraine war are the fault of Putin. Whether it be limted grain exports or stray Ukranian missiles.

2
 Harry Jarvis 28 Nov 2022
In reply to ExiledScot:

> We are stuffed.

I tend to agree. The scale of the problem has still not been adequately been grasped by those who need to grasp it. The fossil fuel lobby has successfully diverted attention from government and corporate inaction to personal choices.

 mutt 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

For the tiny number of houses that the industry builds. For the rest they are left to rot by landlords or get upgraded to modern environmental standards at the expense of the home owner. We have the leakiest houses in the developed world. That would have been sorted years ago if it were affordable but government has many more pressing concerns that don't go away. Therefore the billions needed have to come from tax or unfunded borrowing. I'd it were doable we would all live in insulated houses. You are kidding yourself that the system works. 40 years of inaction is evidence that it does not. Yes billions have been found for wind transition but action is woefully slow because the state cannot pay for it faster whilst satisfying the finance industry that it is not going to destabalise their profit structures. Needless to say those structures depend on maintaining the status quo. Therefore no action. 

 blurty 28 Nov 2022
In reply to ExiledScot:

> We are stuffed.

For sure. 

We need to seriously think about adaption because avoiding the problem is a lost cause already.

 Harry Jarvis 28 Nov 2022
In reply to mutt:

> For the tiny number of houses that the industry builds. For the rest they are left to rot by landlords or get upgraded to modern environmental standards at the expense of the home owner. We have the leakiest houses in the developed world.

Hence the need for government regulation and enforcement. How else do you think it's going to be addressed? Our housing stock is not going to brought up to standard by a few well-meaning individuals. 

> That would have been sorted years ago if it were affordable but government has many more pressing concerns that don't go away.

No, it would have been fixed years ago if there had been the political will. 

> Therefore the billions needed have to come from tax or unfunded borrowing. I'd it were doable we would all live in insulated houses. You are kidding yourself that the system works. 40 years of inaction is evidence that it does not.

I don't believe the system does work at the moment. My point is that government has abdicated itself of its responsibility. Government has to be made accountable. 

I'm afraid I don't see that you are proposing is on the scale needed to make meaningful change happen. Individuals have a contribution to make, but turning down my heating is nothing compared with government action. The shipping industry, the aviation industries - they are not going to change until they are forced to. For example, aviation fuel is not taxed - why is that allowed and what can an individual do about that?

 jkarran 28 Nov 2022
In reply to mutt:

> It was unfunded spending commitments that caused the markets to revolt.

I'm not convinced it was that alone.

> How exactly do you propose to raise the 100's bn to green housing and power generation

Don't ban it, use the tax system to make extraction the less good use of their investment capital over a shift into cleaner energy. It has to happen some time, it might as well be as soon as possible.

> and trillions require for compensating for harm done whilst also banning the product line of most of the ftse 100 companies

Realistically I don't think much will come of reparations/compensation, the economies primarily responsible for the mess are no longer growing on the back of extraction and pillage at a rate to support it which is not entirely bad. Collapsing the world's developed economies for ideological reasons won't help fix climate change (or happen, economies are people at the end of the day, people fight back).

> If you think the markets will wear that by raising taxes by 5p ? I don't. Too many pension funds are tied to the fortunes of those companies. 

Hydrocarbon extraction has to be a dying industry. If our pensions are all balls deep in oil companies and I'm sure they are then solution isn't to ignore the problem and enable more ongoing extraction, it's to wean the oil companies off the oil without killing them, use their wealth and engineering experience toward solving the problems they created. Handwavey bollocks? Sure but they cannot continue to exist as the problem and as you rightly say, they cannot just cease to exist either without creating other very big problems so the answer is rather forced, they have to be re-tasked. Somehow.

jk

1
 earlsdonwhu 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Will you be carbon offsetting? 

1
 mutt 28 Nov 2022
In reply to jkarran:

I hope you are right jk. I'm too invested in the system for a revolution but I fear the only solution is for a entire system reset. Time is running out 

1
 mutt 28 Nov 2022
In reply to jkarran:

Hopefully uncle Derek will forgo his booked flights for the sake of all our grandchildren

 Harry Jarvis 28 Nov 2022
In reply to jkarran:

> Hydrocarbon extraction has to be a dying industry. If our pensions are all balls deep in oil companies and I'm sure they are then solution isn't to ignore the problem and enable more ongoing extraction, it's to wean the oil companies off the oil without killing them, use their wealth and engineering experience toward solving the problems they created. Handwavey bollocks? Sure but they cannot continue to exist as the problem and as you rightly say, they cannot just cease to exist either without creating other very big problems so the answer is rather forced, they have to be re-tasked. Somehow.

This is where the fossil fuel industries have been remarkably dim. They have known for decades the damage their products do, and yet rather than reconfigure themselves as low-carbon energy companies, perfectly placed to dominate the energy markets in the way they have dominated the fossil fuel markets, they have chosen to carry on with their harmful outputs without apparent concern for the fact that their products will become less valuable as more low-carbon sources come on tap. 

The coal industry has been particularly stupid in this regard. If this industry has spent a fraction of its profits on the development of successful carbon-capture schemes, they might have a future. As it is, coal is finally starting to disappear from the energy mix, and is unlikely to revive its fortunes. 

2
 Jamie Wakeham 28 Nov 2022
In reply to mutt:

> ...We have the leakiest houses in the developed world. That would have been sorted years ago if it were affordable but government has many more pressing concerns that don't go away. Therefore the billions needed have to come from tax or unfunded borrowing. I'd it were doable we would all live in insulated houses....

I'm not at all convinced.  There's been a massive run on insulation materials in the last six months, because the spiralling energy bills have finally persuaded many home owners to pull their fingers out and do what they should have done years ago.  It's a bitter shame that it's taken the ramifications of Putin's invasion of Ukraine to bring this about.

Of course, if we had put decent buildings standards in place decades ago then all these houseowners wouldn't need to upgrade.  It is absolutely ridiculous that it's still perfectly legal to build a really quite poorly performing house, and there is no market incentive for Barratt, Persimmon et al to do a better job.  Why would they choose to fit more or better insulation, if they don't have to?  

 Rob Parsons 28 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> Yes. Full disclosure, I have two more flights booked, and I will be taking them.

Pathetic.

 mrphilipoldham 28 Nov 2022
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Too little, far, far too late.

OP Godwin 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> > The analogy I use, is I would not own a slave, it is just wrong.

> But you're going to carry on using the slaves you've got because you've paid for them.

That is a good point.

1
OP Godwin 29 Nov 2022
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

> Will you be carbon offsetting? 

No. I always think Carbon Offsetting, is a bit like the posh boy, paying the poor boy to take the flogging. A case of if you are rich enough, you can do as you wish.

4
OP Godwin 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Forest Dump:

> The more I see the title the more it's triggering me!

> You've not seen the future, you've seen the present. The future is likely to get much worse.

> But, while 1.5c increasingly looks like a pipe dream each metric point of warming will come with increased negative impacts and take us closer to doom, so anything you can do to reduce your impact is a good thing to be doing.

> And while personal choices aren't the whole picture, the impact of those choices can be multiplied if they include how you engage with government and the corporate world..

> Rant over

Obviously you are correct, but possibly you are being a tad pedantic. I was thinking of how much worse it could get in North Africa, and that this will be the future of Southern European countries, with consequent displacement of people.

5
OP Godwin 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Luke90:

> What a strange analogy to pick when discussing how questionable your own actions were! If a climate activist indirectly implied that individual inaction on climate change was morally equivalent to owning slaves then I'd accuse them of offensive hyperbole but if you want to condemn yourself that way then who am I to judge.

>

Why is it hyperbole. Slavery was a clear case of power inequalities and so is Climate Change. The people who cause Climate Change suffer the least, and can afford to mitigate the consequences. The people who suffer the most, have the lowest CO2 footprint, and cannot afford to mitigate.

3
 MG 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> No. I always think Carbon Offsetting, is a bit like the posh boy, paying the poor boy to take the flogging. A case of if you are rich enough, you can do as you wish.

Since you are doing as you wish anyway, surely making some effort to mitigate the effect is reasonable?

1
OP Godwin 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Given that Uncle Derek appears to know he's a hypocrite I don't see the issue. 

Oh I know I am acting Hypocritically, I fully accept that. It is a bit of journey.

Accept Climate Change is real. = Yes.

Is it Anthropogenic.=Yes.

Can I do something about.=Yes

Will I do something about.=Lets see, I intend doing, but will my selfish human side win out.

I know an awful lot of people, who have been aware of CC much longer than me, who have managed to justify doing the absolute minimum for a long time. I am not the only hypocrite in the room. Possibly though one of the few people to accept the fact.

 

12
 Robert Durran 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> Oh I know I am acting Hypocritically, I fully accept that. It is a bit of journey.

> Accept Climate Change is real. = Yes.

> Is it Anthropogenic.=Yes.

> Can I do something about.=Yes

> Will I do something about.=Lets see, I intend doing, but will my selfish human side win out.

>I am not the only hypocrite in the room. Possibly though one of the few people to accept the fact.

Yes, I think your position is actually refreshingly honest, pretty much the same as mine and is probably pretty typical. I think those making the big personal sacrifices are still very much a minority but a proportion are, perhaps understandably, making quite a lot of noise; someone who had given up flying is far more likely to announce the fact on social media than someone who has three flights booked for the next year.

 Brass Nipples 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Its not the future, it’s the present.

 MeMeMe 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think those making the big personal sacrifices are still very much a minority but a proportion are, perhaps understandably, making quite a lot of noise; someone who had given up flying is far more likely to announce the fact on social media than someone who has three flights booked for the next year.

Tbh I think it's completely the other way around. Facebook is full of photos of people on their far flung holidays with everyone commenting "I'm so jealous!", whereas if someone doesn't fly they're pretty unlikely to announce it on Facebook three times a year.

I'd also like to challenge your characterisation of giving up flying as 'a big personal sacrifice'. Honestly? Whilst you will miss out on some things there's plenty of interesting adventures and places to visit that don't involve flying.

1
 LakesWinter 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

I agree - well done to Derek for being truthful in public event though they knew they would get panned.

I have given up flying and would encourage others to do the same - going for fewer but longer trips by train to Europe is a good option. It can cost more but I view that as the cost of not personally contributing to such massive pollution.

1
 Forest Dump 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Again, it already is. See recent wildfires and droughts: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/08/01/climate-change-mediterranean-spain-ita... 

But yes, we're kinda agreeing that it is likely to get worse 

 Robert Durran 29 Nov 2022
In reply to MeMeMe:

> Tbh I think it's completely the other way around. Facebook is full of photos of people on their far flung holidays with everyone commenting "I'm so jealous!", whereas if someone doesn't fly they're pretty unlikely to announce it on Facebook three times a year.

Fair enough. I was thinking more of places like UKC where things are relatively thoughtful.

 Robert Durran 29 Nov 2022
In reply to MeMeMe

> I'd also like to challenge your characterisation of giving up flying as 'a big personal sacrifice'. Honestly? Whilst you will miss out on some things there's plenty of interesting adventures and places to visit that don't involve flying.

Obviously I could live fine and have adventures without flying, but it would still feel like a really big deal to give it up (Basically probably never climb outside Europe again).

And am I meant to give up driving a lot as well and, as mutt says, cycle everywhere? I absolutely hate cycling and, of course, it's totally impractical for most journeys. I looked at my carbon footprint the year before covid and most of it was evenly spilt between three long haul plus one short haul flights (the most I've ever flown in a year) and my driving. If I gave up flying I suspect I would replace most of its carbon with driving around Europe and within the UK.

Post edited at 09:34
3
 MeMeMe 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> In reply to MeMeMe

> Obviously I could live fine and have adventures without flying, but it would still feel like a really big deal to give it up (Basically probably never climb outside Europe again).

Maybe I was being a bit flippant saying it wasn't a big deal, some people are happy staying in and watching telly and have never left the country, others like far flung adventures, I completely understand that it can be a big deal.

However, climate change is a big deal too, a huge, enormous deal for everyone.

> And am I meant to give up driving a lot as well and, as mutt says, cycle everywhere?

I don't really understand this absolutism. If it can't be perfect then it's not worth doing anything? Do you fly somewhere only to drive around anyway?

> I absolutely hate cycling and, of course, it's totally impractical for most journeys. I looked at my carbon footprint the year before covid and most of it was evenly spilt between three long haul plus one short haul flights (the most I've ever flown in a year) and my driving. If I gave up flying I suspect I would replace most of its carbon with driving around Europe and within the UK.

With no meaningful government intervention at this point the only limits for people are basically their financial means and their feelings of guilt. We're likely screwed.

 LakesWinter 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

Re driving vs flying, there are 2 carbon related advantages to driving as far as i am aware.

1) per person carbon emissions are less for driving compared to flying the same journey.

2) flying puts the emissions straight into a higher part of the atmosphere. Driving at floor level, some of that carbon will be captured in the carbon cycle and not just go straight into the atmosphere

1
 65 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> I know an awful lot of people, who have been aware of CC much longer than me, who have managed to justify doing the absolute minimum for a long time. I am not the only hypocrite in the room. Possibly though one of the few people to accept the fact.

Totally fair comment. I was inclined earlier to throw stones at you but I'd have been throwing them from my greenhouse.

I have my first flight booked for a number of years, to Italy for one week. It wasn't feasible to drive or to go by train. I did agonise over it and am not entirely comfortable with my decision and am wishing now I'd either gone for a two week break or gone to France or Austria instead where getting the train is more feasible. I generally favour driving but we had a 18 day holiday to the Pyrenees in September and spent six of them sat in the car. Next time it will be either train or, if we can manage it, a much longer break.   

1
 ExiledScot 29 Nov 2022
In reply to 65:

I think the bigger acceptance for all of us is that really we should be holidaying much nearer home, not flying or cruising at all. Or at least an overseas trip being an environmental treat every 5-10 years. 

No doubt after covid many will be short hauling every few months just to go on the pop then fly home two days later. It's pretty ridiculous in all respects. 

 Robert Durran 29 Nov 2022
In reply to LakesWinter:

> 1) per person carbon emissions are less for driving compared to flying the same journey.

With how many passengers? If I were to replace my European flying with driving, the long drives would most likely be alone with less time rich climbing partners flying out to join me for a while.

 Duncan Bourne 29 Nov 2022
In reply to ExiledScot:

> I think the bigger acceptance for all of us is that really we should be holidaying much nearer home, not flying or cruising at all. Or at least an overseas trip being an environmental treat every 5-10 years. 

The problem of course is cost and weather. I once had two holiday opportunites Ice climbing in Scotland or a sunny holiday to Spain. Apart from the weather and the reliability of ice Spain cost me the grand total of £50 while Scotland would have cost me £249. That is all inclusive, travel and everything. We haven't been abroad now since 2017 and most of the time we don't mind, but when it is cold, grim and depressing we hanker for the sun.

Many people don't want to spend winter in the cold and the damp but do so because they can't afford otherwise. Train travel is more green than a lot of other forms of transport but I avoid it because it is expensive, cramped and unreliable. This is from someone used to love train travel. So if we go anywhere beyond a cycle ride distance we take the car.

4
 ExiledScot 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> The problem of course is cost and weather. I once had two holiday opportunites Ice climbing in Scotland or a sunny holiday to Spain. Apart from the weather and the reliability of ice Spain cost me the grand total of £50 while Scotland would have cost me £249.

Maybe travel to find warm dry rock, reliable winter snow & ice isn't a global priority?

You emit more carbon trying to find better winter conditions because of climate change? 😉

> Many people don't want to spend winter in the cold and the damp but do so because they can't afford otherwise. Train travel is more green than a lot of other forms of transport

Greener, doesn't mean it's carbon neutral especially as power generation leaps back to more carbon intensive sources this year. 

Yeah, in a dream future, real 100% carbon neutral power generation, high speed train from grey Manchester to Spain etc...

 Ramblin dave 29 Nov 2022
In reply to ExiledScot:

> Maybe travel to find warm dry rock, reliable winter snow & ice isn't a global priority?

It does do my head in a bit that we're staring down the barrel of collapsing ecosystems, massive human suffering and a world changed beyond recognition and a lot of people on here are saying "well yeah but giving up my winter sun bolt clipping trip would be a bit much, though..."

OP Godwin 29 Nov 2022
In reply to 65:

> Totally fair comment. I was inclined earlier to throw stones at you but I'd have been throwing them from my greenhouse.

> I have my first flight booked for a number of years, to Italy for one week. It wasn't feasible to drive or to go by train. I did agonise over it and am not entirely comfortable with my decision and am wishing now I'd either gone for a two week break or gone to France or Austria instead where getting the train is more feasible. I generally favour driving but we had a 18 day holiday to the Pyrenees in September and spent six of them sat in the car. Next time it will be either train or, if we can manage it, a much longer break.   

That is a fair reply

Now I have more time, going for longer seems one way of slightly mitigating the environmental cost of the travelling, but not everyone is in that position.

We will be trying not to fly, after my last booked trip, our next summers holidays is 6 weeks in Europe, on our Push Bikes.

I have to wonder what kind of climbing many of the respondents to this thread do, everyone I know travels to climb. Many/most (if they have not got one, they want one) even have some kind of van to facilitate this.

Possibly people who live within walking/cycling distance of a wall/crag, can hurl rotten tomatoes, but after that, hmm.

Have people seen that Rockfax is a guidebook publisher, the business model relies on the fact that people will be travelling to different areas.
I do wonder if the source of some peoples ire, is not my hypocrisy, but the implied criticism of their lifestyle. First chapter of How to Win Friends and Influence People. Do not criticise.

8
 LakesWinter 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

This article seems to suggest that 1 person driving is still going to have a less harmful effect than that person flying.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49349566

1
 ExiledScot 29 Nov 2022
In reply to LakesWinter:

Driving less and not flying at all would be better still. We are still in the mentality of picking the less bad option, rather than what is actually good. We all do it, me included. 

 Jamie Wakeham 29 Nov 2022
In reply to LakesWinter:

I've seen various analyses that suggest that driving a typical ICE car, solo, is broadly comparable to flying in economy class over the same trip.  So driving with several passengers in your car, or in a more efficient ICE (or even better an EV), or by bus, or by train, are all significant wins in terms of CO2.

I'm in my mid forties and it's been perfectly clear all of my adult life that cutting back dramatically on flying is one part of what needs to happen.  I've flown eight times in my life, never for a period shorter than two weeks.  I'd love to go back to Tafraoute every autumn, and could easily afford to, but it's not compatible with my belief that it is not a responsible thing to do.

 Ramblin dave 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> I've seen various analyses that suggest that driving a typical ICE car, solo, is broadly comparable to flying in economy class over the same trip.  So driving with several passengers in your car, or in a more efficient ICE (or even better an EV), or by bus, or by train, are all significant wins in terms of CO2.

Also you often aren't doing the same trip - the alternative to flying to Kalymnos for your winter trip isn't driving to Kalymnos, it's probably driving to somewhere like Provence or even Scotland.

 Jamie Wakeham 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Ramblin dave:

That's true.  Often the direct comparison is a bit meaningless - I don't fancy trying to take my EV to Nepal, for example!

 65 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> I do wonder if the source of some peoples ire, is not my hypocrisy, but the implied criticism of their lifestyle. First chapter of How to Win Friends and Influence People. Do not criticise.

I think criticism of everything is vital, which is different from slagging something, or more usually by extension someone, off.

 mutt 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

>If I gave up flying I suspect I would replace most of its carbon with driving around Europe and within the UK.

Actually you wouldn't. There are plenty of carbon calculators available I line so don't speculate. Find out exactly how many miles you could drive for the co2 emitted in a transatlantic round trip. I think you would find it very hard to drive that far.

In other words don't take flights, take the train. It might cost you a little more but it's a much pleasanter experience. 

And with regard to your comments about hating cycling. Is that because you are unfit? If you are then I suggest that is why you like sitting down so much. Being fit is soo much nicer. 

5
 Robert Durran 29 Nov 2022
In reply to LakesWinter:

> This article seems to suggest that 1 person driving is still going to have a less harmful effect than that person flying.

Fair enough. A bit more. I do intend to drive to Europe more now that I've retired and have the time.

1
 Robert Durran 29 Nov 2022
In reply to mutt:

> In other words don't take flights, take the train. It might cost you a little more but it's a much pleasanter experience. 

Actually I Iove flying. Nothing against rail on principle though and I would switch to the train if not too expensive and inconvenient.

> And with regard to your comments about hating cycling. Is that because you are unfit? If you are then I suggest that is why you like sitting down so much. Being fit is soo much nicer. 

No, I am not unfit. Far from it. I just absolutely HATE cycling - unpleasant and dangerous. So please don't make silly assumptions. Anyway, cycling is completely unrealistic for 99% of the journeys I make, and most for which it might be realistic I'd prefer to walk than faff about getting out a loathsome contraption.

3
 Duncan Bourne 29 Nov 2022
In reply to ExiledScot:

I've given up on winter conditions (too cold for my old bones) but a bit of winter warmth would be nice.

I liked what you said on another post "we all choose the least bad option". I realise that somethings I am happy to do without but somethings I do not want to do without. I could don my hair shirt and never go anywhere I couldn't cycle too or give all my money (such as it is) to grenpeace but my neighbours will still be going to Turkey 4 times a year and fireing up their wood burner which they have just installed to offset the price of gas. It would be nice to get carbon neutral travel but I won't see it in my lifetime.

The elephant in the room is 8 billion people and climbing

Post edited at 15:58
2
 Robert Durran 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> The elephant in the room is 8 billion people and climbing.

Climbing is just a mouse in the corner compared with mass tourism.

2
 Duncan Bourne 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

touché

 Harry Jarvis 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Climbing is just a mouse in the corner compared with mass tourism.

That tired old 'I am a traveller, they are a tourist'. On an individual basis, it's all the same thing. 

2
 mutt 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

Fair enough then. I guess we are just opposites. Flying I find loathsome and cycling is joyous but I certainly get what you are saying about getting the f'ing thing out of the garage. That bit is a right pain. Largely though because the local theives make regular incursions into my garage so I have created a number of pits with sharped sticks to impeded them. Sorry about my lazy assumptions as to your fitness levels.

1
 Robert Durran 29 Nov 2022
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> That tired old 'I am a traveller, they are a tourist'. On an individual basis, it's all the same thing. 

Ok. I should have said that climbing is just a drop in the ocean of mass tourism. 

3
 spenser 29 Nov 2022
In reply to jkarran:

There is a huge need for engineers in the nuclear industry, the move from one heavily regulated industry with significant hazards mitigated by physical, engineered and operational constraints to another heavily regulated industry is fairly straightforward (I made a similar move from rail) so a transition from O&G would be relatively straightforward.

I strongly doubt that the nuclear industry can meet the demands placed on it by the government unless there is a huge influx of engineers from somewhere, O&G is the only industry which is not going to experience increased demand if we take a sensible approach to dealing with climate change.

 girlymonkey 29 Nov 2022
In reply to mutt:

While flying is obviously bad, and we should do it less, it actually only accounts for a small percentage of global warming. Of course, that is massively skewed by the fact that only a small percentage of the global population has the means to do it anyway. 

However, around 40% of global emissions come from heating homes and work places. Yet this is the one which people are very reluctant to tackle. 

The financial differences are obviously a factor. You can save money by not flying but it will cost you money to improve your heating footprint. This is why I think the government need to put firm requirements on the way new homes are built, as it doesn't cost much extra at the building stage to make sure it is well insulated and fitted with solar panels, heat pumps, underfloor heating etc. Retro fitting these things is costly and never as good as being built like that. 

In terms of flying, I believe travel is good for a person. It opens your mind to other ways of living, helps you to see life from a different perspective and reduces xenophobia. Clearly, none of this applies to a week in a British resort in the Algarve! But travelling should not be scoffed at.

Travel doesn't need to be frequent to be worthwhile. I reckon we fly somewhere roughly once every 5 years. I don't think that is unsustainable. 

Sorry maybe not much of a coherent train of thought, I'm sleepy at work! But basically, I think flying should be reduced a lot, but I wouldn't criticise anyone for an occasional trip. But heating is a very regular thing, a huge contributor, and really really needs sorted. 

1
In reply to Godwin:

I don't disagree with you, but I wouldn't use one trip as evidence here. It's fairly dry in the region, having had no significant rain in the last three years. But that's always been fairly normal, and it's way greener and more verdant than it used to be. Back in the mid-2000's they'd not had rain in Tafraout for something like 10 years, and by today's standards the scenery was far more desert-like. There was a particularly wet few years, which must have been around 2010 or so, when the vegetation really took hold, and from then until 2018 the place got unusually high rainfall. We even had snow in Tafraout in 2017, which was one of the wettest years people had known. Right now, a lot of the vegetation has died back to somewhere like 'normal' levels. The addition of large water tanks represents a step forward in terms of protecting the water supply, but reflects a recent investment in infrastructure more than it does changing conditions. In 2017/18 and mains water was only on for half of the day, even after many 'wet' years - now they are much more resilient with the tankered water. 

As I say - I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it's worth keeping things in perspective. The groundwater springs on the escarpment are still flowing at the moment, which is more than could be said 15 years ago. There was a fairly warm period in October and early November, much like in the UK, but last week temperatures dropped off again and it's fairly typical for the time of year.

Mind you, the prickly pears have suffered.

Hope you managed to get some good routes in, despite the heat!!!

1
OP Godwin 01 Dec 2022
In reply to Steve Broadbent:

That is a really interesting reply, thank you. When I was last there in 2016, it was commented that it was more arid than it had been. I had a conversation with Jamal about it, and he was a bit concerned, but not running around hair on fire concerned, and my French is not as good as Jamals English, so it is not an easy conversation. Your perspective over 20+ years, is the kind of thing I wanted to hear.
Yes, great climbing thanks, highlights being Scimitar Ridge and Pink Lady, and in the North the temps were perfect for us. A low point was A Sunny Afternoon Stroll, in the Amelen. The upper ab we had to replace, but people should expect this at the moment as many of the routes may not have been climbed for 2,3 or maybe 4 years due to the Pandemic, but we could not convince ourselves that the tree in slippery gully had ever been abbed off, and it looked highly possible we could get our ropes stuck. So we traversed back onto the route, down climbed two pitches then abbed. All in baking sun, I just ran down to the aqueduct and shoved my head into the round sump full of water.

A great place, would love to go back, possibly train down to Malaga, then a ferry ¯_(ツ)_/¯

If I have your attention, have you ever been to Socotra or do you know anyone who has, the only reference to climbing there was by Mike Libeki and IIRC The Oxford Uni Club.

 Jamie Wakeham 01 Dec 2022
In reply to Steve Broadbent:

> There was a particularly wet few years, which must have been around 2010 or so...

February 2010.  Abandoning the cars and wading back up to the Amandiers!

Post edited at 09:36
 Jamie Wakeham 01 Dec 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> Your perspective over 20+ years, is the kind of thing I wanted to hear.

There have always been variations in the weather, and the edge of the Sahara will be particularly variable.  It's important to remember that weather =/= climate.   

> If I have your attention, have you ever been to Socotra or do you know anyone who has, the only reference to climbing there was by Mike Libeki and IIRC The Oxford Uni Club.

I don't recall anyone in OUMC reporting anything in Socotra, but Steve may well have a better memory than me.

In reply to Godwin:

I don't remember hearing anything about Socotra. Looks interesting though!

 Duncan Bourne 01 Dec 2022
In reply to girlymonkey:

Good post (I don't do the like/dislike button thing)

3
OP Godwin 01 Dec 2022
In reply to Steve Broadbent and Jamie:

> I don't remember hearing anything about Socotra. Looks interesting though!

Possibly this is what I came across https://www.jstor.org/stable/1790246 . It is a few years since I was thinking of a trip there, and then troubles in Yemen  made it a non starter. At the time I would have had full academic library access, which I no longer have.
It does look an amazing place, a kind of Galapgos, with huge Granite (?) towers.

 deepsoup 01 Dec 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Ok. I should have said that climbing is just a drop in the ocean of mass tourism. 

Everybody else's holiday is "just a drop in the ocean" too.

It makes absolutely no difference whether they're clinging to a rock or lounging on a beach when they get there.  Flying somewhere sunny to climb is mass tourism.

 mutt 01 Dec 2022
In reply to girlymonkey:

While I generally support you statement it's worth pointing out the obvious difference between those things we have to do and those things we choose to do for whatever reason. You say that heating is 40percent but we can't really do without that short of moving to a different country. Flying at whatever frequency you find acceptable is always optional. Your position is that travel to far flung places is good for your appreciation of other cultures is laudable but chiefly benefits you (unless you happen to work for the press or the foreign office or the home office). It would equally benefit someone of lower socio economic circumstances but they have to make do with school, literature and news papers. None of those has significant co2 emissions. So however you cut it your flights are selfish and damaging unless you can see a way of sharing out access to travel equitably and then it will just be damaging all be it with residual improvement in cultural awareness. 

You might point out that I have flown recently, and I have, and I did engage in some cultural awareness growth activities but I'm not fooling myself that my holiday was benefiting anyone else. (And actually I wish I had stood fast against my families insistance that holidaying in the sun was absolutely necessary). 

So no I don't buy it that flying is to be dealt with after heating. It can be stopped now and it should be. That would buy us some leeway in tackling the more intractable emissions caused by the necessities of life in the northern hemisphere. 

1
 girlymonkey 01 Dec 2022
In reply to mutt:

Traveling by train is only the preserve of the very rich. Not only are the trains very expensive, but the time off to travel that way is also very expensive. 

So stopping people getting cheap flights is massively exacerbating the inequality gap and shrinks people's worlds. There's only so much you can understand about cultures and people by reading. You need to see, experience, meet, feel to really understand. Empathy and understanding coming from walking in someone's shoes. 

11 years ago, we flew to Ukraine and travelled around the country. We stayed in people's homes, saw political protests, chatted with people all over the country. We went to Crimea before it was annexed. We gained a deeper understanding of the nuances of how people in different parts of the country felt about languages, for example. Where people looked east and west. How they show hospitality. And gained a huge appreciation of the country. Now that we have refugees here, my husband and I have common ground to talk about with them, an understanding of where they have come from and what their culture is. An idea of what could offend them and what could help them feel comfortable. 

We have also been to Russia (I have been numerous times and even lived there, husband has just been once). If you had only read about Russia, you will get a very different picture of the people than you have from meeting them. We met people in Altai who barely spoke Russian and felt like they were living about 100 years behind the rest of Russia. When they asked where we were from, and I said Scotland, one man asked if that was somewhere outside of the Altai region! We met people who were very aware of how hostile their government is and the impression that westerners often have of them and were very keen to distance themselves from that. We met a young guy who had previously been a self confessed skin head and very racist. His time in military service changed his outlook as he had to serve alongside people from all over Russia and the former republics. He then came out as openly gay, not one person in the room batted an eyelid.

Our external perceptions of what people are like from what we read can never match the reality of whom we meet. 

Travel broadens the mind and helps mutual understanding, and who knows when you might need that!

Now, that is not to say that we should all throw caution to the wind and fly several times a year with gay abandon. But occasional trips add very little to your carbon footprint in the grand scheme of things and add a lot to who you are as a person. 

I reckon we fly roughly once every 5 years, and I am very ok with that.

2
 Bottom Clinger 01 Dec 2022
In reply to girlymonkey:

Flying, no matter what frequency, is 100% unsustainable because the aviation fuel used will eventually run out and there is no replacement.   So all flights are bad. I read that whilst total global air miles is increasing, the majority of the worlds population doesn’t fly. Of those that do, the biggest % fly the least, whilst a small minority fly shed loads. I read recently that the most eco way to travel is by coach.  I suspect the days of catching the BMC bus from Manchester to Cham will be back. I heard it wasn’t that bad and was good value (I hitched, then more laterly drove then flew).  It baffles me why flying is so cheap. Perhaps the real ‘price’ is the damage to the planet. 
For the record, I have a very depressing view of it all - change will only come too late, the planet will be a very different (and worse) place, and this will happen after flying and other luxuries are soo bloody expensive only the mega rich can afford them. And I don’t begrudge people taking the odd flight. Personally, wouldn’t bother me if I never caught a plane again. 

2
 Robert Durran 03 Dec 2022
In reply to mutt:

Been thinking about this.

I am thinking of joining a friend who will be in Spain in January to climb. It would be a 2 or 3 week trip. I could drive out on my own. I could fly then hire a car for about the cost of the diesel to drive out, but with a bit more carbon footprint than flying. Or I could get the train and then hire a car for about double the cost but much lower carbon footprint. Should I take into account the fact that the plane is going to be going anyway, probably with someone else in the seat I might have bought if I drive, but by driving I am definitely adding the carbon footprint of my journey to the global total? It seems to me that, in this scenario, the long term effect of decreasing the overall demand for flights by not flying needs to offset the carbon footprint of my driving.

Obviously the virtuous thing to do would be not to go at all, but I would probably then do a lot of the driving around Scotland instead. Or maybe I should just stay at home losing the will to live.....

 Tim Sparrow 03 Dec 2022
In reply to Steve Broadbent:

"Mind you, the prickly pears have suffered."

I believe that is due to an infestation from a cochinneal beetle and is fairly widespread, not just the AntiAtlas. It's not due to the dry conditions as I first thought.

Sad to see them as fallen dried up crisps on the floor though.

1
 MG 03 Dec 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

I think the plane will go anyway argument is wrong. Ok, that particular flight might but if overall demand drops there will quickly be fewer flights. Each individual decision affects that.

 Misha 03 Dec 2022
In reply to girlymonkey:

> I have made as many changes as I can afford to make ... I don't have kids

This. This is the biggest single contribution any of us can make. Obviously it’s not for everyone and ‘too late’ for some but if you’re concerned about the environment, this is the number one thing to do and it’s probably the easiest thing to do as well. Or at least have one child rather than two or more. There should be more public discourse about this but obviously politicians are afraid to have it.

That’s not to say that childless people shouldn’t be doing more.

4
 Misha 03 Dec 2022
In reply to Godwin:

As others have said, the irony is that you presumably flew there and have a couple of other flights booked.

You mentioned grandchildren, so perhaps you are retired. In that case, you have the time to go the slow way by train and/or boat. You might even enjoy the journey! It will probably cost more but you’ll be richer for the experience.

I keep wondering about climbing trips to far away countries. Is it ok because you’re putting money into the local economy (except that climbers are generally notoriously tight…)? Or is it not ok because of the emissions caused by travel?

I think the answer is to have fewer but longer holidays, avoid flying and get the train if possible.

I’ve never been to Spain. Thinking of going for a few weeks in spring. Train to Barcelona is eminently feasible and actually cheaper than driving, as well as being a much nicer way to travel. Might need to hire a car once there but local travel should be fairly limited once at the destination. Worth giving it a go…

2
 Misha 03 Dec 2022
In reply to MG:

> I think the plane will go anyway argument is wrong. Ok, that particular flight might but if overall demand drops there will quickly be fewer flights. Each individual decision affects that.

Agree. I used to think ‘it’s going anyway’ and at the individual level that makes sense but your point about contributing to demand is spot on. Of course a simpler way to address the issue is for the government to reduce the number of flights through regulation but that won’t be popular, so they will never do it.

1
 echo34 03 Dec 2022

I think flying is often unfairly targeted (especially on these forums) as the easy option. 
heavy industry, shipping and personal vehicles are a much higher contributor to emissions. No one seems to want to talk about that though. I find it quite amusing how the pitch folks come out when someone mentions getting on a flight but these people then happily drive the length of the country every weekend to go to the “local crag”

Alternative fuels are coming for aviation.


 

 
 

 Misha 03 Dec 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

Get the train and ask your friend to pick you up from somewhere you can get to by public transport.

Or just don’t go. January is prime training time at your local walls!

 Misha 03 Dec 2022
In reply to girlymonkey:

I get the point about experiencing other cultures but it’s a bit of a privilege, isn’t it? Very much on the ‘nice to have’ list.

The only real justification I can see for travelling to far away places is to contribute to the local economy, if it’s a relatively poor area.

1
 Misha 03 Dec 2022
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> The elephant in the room is 8 billion people and climbing

Ah so that’s why the Depot can get so busy!

 Robert Durran 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Misha:

> I’ve never been to Spain. Thinking of going for a few weeks in spring. Train to Barcelona is eminently feasible and actually cheaper than driving......

I looked up Edinburgh to Barcelona return. About £550 by train. About £400 max in diesel driving (and no need to hire a car there, and I'd have my car/van to doss in).

> ....as well as being a much nicer way to travel. 

In some ways, but driving allows me to stop off in nice places at will.

 Robert Durran 04 Dec 2022
In reply to MG:

> I think the plane will go anyway argument is wrong. Ok, that particular flight might but if overall demand drops there will quickly be fewer flights. 

Yes, but it is obvious when passing through a busy airport that the only way overall demand is going to drop is by really significant price increases (which I would support). Aviation is booming. 

2
 Robert Durran 04 Dec 2022
In reply to echo34:

> I think flying is often unfairly targeted (especially on these forums) as the easy option. 

> heavy industry, shipping and personal vehicles are a much higher contributor to emissions. No one seems to want to talk about that though. I find it quite amusing how the pitch folks come out when someone mentions getting on a flight.

I think this brings us back to the fact that only government action and then probably only on a global scale is going to make the necessary difference. On a personal level we are mostly just toying with feelings of guilt or virtuousness when it comes to travelling to climb.

 Robert Durran 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Misha:

> Get the train and ask your friend to pick you up from somewhere you can get to by public transport.

Probably wouldn't work for various reasons including accomodation.

 Rob Exile Ward 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Misha:

'Or at least have one child rather than two or more.'

I don't  quite get this; the logical result of the arguments against having children is that humans become extinct anyway. Bit of self-loathing there:

'Where every prospect pleases

And only man is vile'

5
 timjones 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I looked up Edinburgh to Barcelona return. About £550 by train. About £400 max in diesel driving (and no need to hire a car there, and I'd have my car/van to doss in).

> In some ways, but driving allows me to stop off in nice places at will.

The train is a lot cheaper if you use an interail pass.

I find it more pleasant than flying or driving and you can add in an overnight or even longer stop somewhere along the way.

As long as you get the Eurostar section booked in advance you can be very flexible about the rest of your journey.

 echo34 04 Dec 2022

> The elephant in the room is 8 billion people and climbing


this is the main issue, which again no one seems to want to talk about. There need to be population controls and limits enforced worldwide.

1
 Duncan Bourne 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I don't  quite get this; the logical result of the arguments against having children is that humans become extinct anyway. Bit of self-loathing there:<

I never quite get the counter argument to having less children when there is 8 billion on the planet. "oh my God we might slip to 7 billion. We going to go extinct!"

According to Wikipedia: ... with a fertility-reduction model of one-child per female by 2100, it would take at least 140 years to reduce the population to 2 billion people by 2153

Somewhere between over population and extinction there has to be a sweet spot. In fact there needs to be.

Currently we are over populated like a shared house that keeps getting new residents but no extra food. How many people the world can sustain varies (up to 16 billion in some cases) however this is the maximum. The optimal number is far lower than we are at currently and hovers around the 3 billion mark for a sustainable Western lifestyle.

Of course if we do nothing we will eventually crash. We have pushed the Malthian envelope as far as it will go I feel.

Couple of links re. population.

https://overpopulation-project.com/what-is-the-optimal-sustainable-populati...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-25/population-growth-world-over...

Edit: I would say that all this is based on the premise that we remain earthbound. Astroid mining, collection of interplanetary materials and colonisation would all change the above

Post edited at 09:32
1
OP Godwin 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, but it is obvious when passing through a busy airport that the only way overall demand is going to drop is by really significant price increases (which I would support)

And here is the crux. I assume you would support this with your vote, so you could have been voting for the Green Party. But leaving that to one side, if say Labour said they were going to put a significant tax on Airlines, would you really and truly, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote for them.

Leaving all that to one side, climbing is all about taking personal responsibility, and you could take personal responsibility and not fly and limit yourself to say 8000 (thats a random UKC figure with no basis in science) driving miles a year. That would be just as powerful as a vote as if people stop using planes, they will stop flying.

Isn't the honest truth, that once we put our Guardians down and have done a bit of hand wringing, most of us (me) are selfish hypocrites, who really do not care enough about a Baby starving to death in Somalia due to CC, to not go on climbing trip to Kalymnos, an Ice Trip to Rujakan or walking trip to do the GR ??, or an all inclusive to Eleveneriffe.
My main driver is my Grandson, so a selfish reason, I don't really care about some Moroccan in a village having a tough time, not really, I only start to care when they land in Dover, and not much about that, as no refugees live near me. Thats pretty awful, isn't it, it is called Human Nature

10
 Phil1919 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Godwin:

I haven't this thread through, but as for whether we should take action as an individual, I can't help being influenced by the thought......if I was walking down a suburban street which was full of litter and neglect, would I be bothered if i just added to the problem? I think that on a few levels, I'd be better for it if I didn't. The street may not feel any different, but I would, depending on which action I took.

 Forest Dump 04 Dec 2022
In reply to echo34:

Why so, when 90% of emissions arise from a 10% minority?

1
 felt 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> My main driver is my Grandson

One struggles to get the staff too, so best keep the job in the family?

 Robert Durran 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> But leaving that to one side, if say Labour said they were going to put a significant tax on Airlines, would you really and truly, in the privacy of the polling booth, vote for them.

It is a policy that would make me more likely to vote for any party.

> Leaving all that to one side, climbing is all about taking personal responsibility, and you could take personal responsibility and not fly and limit yourself to say 8000 (thats a random UKC figure with no basis in science) driving miles a year.

I think it is very odd to make an equivalence between the "personal responsibility" of climbing and not flying; very different things. Anyway, yes, I could, but it would feel like a really massive sacrifice. Even just the mileage - pretty much staying local.

> Isn't the honest truth, that once we put our Guardians down and have done a bit of hand wringing, most of us (me) are selfish hypocrites, who really do not care enough about a Baby starving to death in Somalia due to CC, to not go on climbing trip to Kalymnos, an Ice Trip to Rujakan.

Yes, I think most people are continuing pretty much as normal. Maybe "thinking about cutting back" or "starting to feel a bit guilty" is pretty typical. I don't see many people cutting back on climbing travel yet.

Post edited at 14:52
 mutt 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Phil1919:

> .....if I was walking down a suburban street which was full of litter and neglect, would I be bothered if i just added to the problem? I think that on a few levels, I'd be better for it if I didn't. The street may not feel any different, but I would, depending on which action I took.

This is a very good analogy, thank you. And the extension to your point is that you would be in an even better place if you picked up some litter as you went and placed it in a bin. Many of us do that when we walk to the crag.

Why then would any of us dump on the environment on our way to sport climbing? Would I chuck litter all over the path on the way to Malham? No, so how can it be right to litter the atmoshere with co2 on the way to kalymnos or El choro? 

 mutt 04 Dec 2022
In reply to timjones:

And there is the bus. This is a cheap way to get to Spain as you save on an overnight stay.

> The train is a lot cheaper if you use an interail pass.

> I find it more pleasant than flying or driving and you can add in an overnight or even longer stop somewhere along the way.

> As long as you get the Eurostar section booked in advance you can be very flexible about the rest of your journey.

 mutt 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Been thinking about this.

> I am thinking of joining a friend who will be in Spain in January to climb. It would be a 2 or 3 week trip. I could drive out on my own. I could fly then hire a car for about the cost of the diesel to drive out, but with a bit more carbon footprint than flying. Or I could get the train and then hire a car for about double the cost but much lower carbon footprint. Should I take into account the fact that the plane is going to be going anyway, probably with someone else in the seat I might have bought if I drive, but by driving I am definitely adding the carbon footprint of my journey

Take the bus if the cost is bothering you. And your argument about the seat sitting empty if circular. If you fly the seat on the train. And a seat on the bus is empty. you can only sit in one seat so your own personal contribution is best served by using the lowest carbon method of transport. This helps the bus company to make a profit and they will lay on more seats. The completion will increase and bus fairs will lower to that of. Air fares. It used to be dirt cheap to take the bus to Spain. It's only the number of climbers taking the plane that has made the service uneconomical. Increase demand will take is back there 

 Phil1919 04 Dec 2022
In reply to mutt:

Yes, I don't think you can have 'hope' unless you are part of the solution. And as I read somewhere, hope is a state of mind which doesn't depend on the outcome. 

 Robert Durran 04 Dec 2022
In reply to mutt:

> Take the bus if the cost is bothering you. 

Sorry, but, to be absolutely honest, it's not bothering me enough and my feelings of guilt are not strong enough to tempt me to spend about six days crammed onto a bus. I'd be crippled.

 DaveHK 04 Dec 2022
In reply to echo34:

> this is the main issue, which again no one seems to want to talk about. There need to be population controls and limits enforced worldwide.

It's not the main issue at all and that's why people don't talk about it. It's a tired old chestnut that shifts the blame away from where it really lies: how we use resources and the minority of the population responsible for the majority of the emissions. 

And even if it was an issue, how could it be changed on the required timescales? If we want to tackle climate change it needs to be with realistic measures, not pie in the sky stuff about population control. 

Post edited at 17:38
1
 Duncan Bourne 04 Dec 2022
In reply to DaveHK:

I agree with you here. I mean population "is" the main issue, in the sense that if there were half the number of people on the planet the effect on the environment would be considerably less. However even if nobody had any children for a generation there would still be loads of people and climate change would still be an issue.

I have always argued that we are over populated and that will come back to bite us in the future but as you say it won't help us in the short term.

1
 timjones 04 Dec 2022
In reply to mutt:

> And there is the bus. This is a cheap way to get to Spain as you save on an overnight stay.

A couple of hours on a bus is more than enough for me.

The train is far more pleasant and an overnight stay is not compulsory, it's just a nice to take it easy and enjoy a little exploration during the journey.

 Siward 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

It's absolutely the issue. Fortunately long term population is set to decline but it will be a long rocky road along the way. The concept that the Earth and nature must be exploited so as support and encourage the maximum possible population is pointless. Who wants to live there? 

 Pedro50 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

I've travelled by Flixbus to and from the Spanish and French pyrenees several times. It's stress free and cheap, seems a no brainer to me.

 Misha 04 Dec 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

You’re forgetting the ferry and the French tolls (not sure if there are tolls in Spain as well). Also, Edinburgh to Barcelona return is 2,600 miles. I don’t know about you but I’m struggling to get less than 20p / mile out of my Transporter. I guess a car could be closer to £400. Before car hire, it’s not a huge difference in cost either way. The car hire is the expensive bit - if you need it. Consider it your contribution to the environmental cause 😂

Easy for me to say but I think the age of cheap foreign holidays is gradually coming to an end and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

1
 Misha 04 Dec 2022
In reply to DaveHK:

Of course population is an issue. Consider the resources going into bringing up the average 2 middle class kids in the UK. Considerably more than the resources going into bringing up 2 or more children in a poor family in a developing country… but even there the extra people will put a strain on existing resources and services.

I’m not suggesting population control as such but I think it’s a debate we should be having a lot more so that people are aware of the consequences.  Easy for me to say as I’ve never wanted to have children and don’t fully understand why people want them (I sort of get it, but as far as I can see the negatives outweigh the positives and that’s before taking into account the environmental implications - each to their own though).

4
 Duncan Bourne 05 Dec 2022
In reply to Siward:

I agree with you too. For future sustainablity we need a smaller population. However that is a long term goal and not one that will be painless. As you say the world birthrate is declining as is fertility rate. Mostly the reasons given for this are social 1. Education of women. 2. lower child mortality 3. access to contraception 4. Increasing social prosperity 4. Children remaining children longer and staying at home

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/birthrates-declining-globally-why-ma...

and

https://volusonclub.net/empowered-womens-health/4-contributing-factors-to-d...

there is also a biological aspect with regard to falling sperm count.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32168194/

What strikes me is those who say this is all doom and gloom point to economic collapse (Less people to sell stuff to) and social problems (less people to look after the elderly) rather than the benefits to the planet. Looking for solutions to continue business as usual rather than find solutions to the above problems.

So far we have avoided a Malthusian collapse when population growth outpaces agricultural production, causing famine or war, resulting in poverty and depopulation. As our technology has advanced exponentially long with our population. However the earth is still a finite resource. Solar energy requires earth minerals to capture it. food production requires space to grow, we require water for not just ourselves but industry and we all require space to live in. This doesn't even take into account the unintended consequences of our actions. Logically at some point we will hit a point where we cannot sustain our population but even before we get there life will become uncomfortable.

Post edited at 08:49

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...