UKH

/ climate change is the symptom

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
tonanf - on 06 Dec 2018

i heard it said on radio that d. attenborough(tv presenter) said that global warming is the greatest threat to humanity, or something like that. 

well i wanted to share that i think addressing global warming as the problem is like using a tissue to wipe your nose as a cure for a cold.

aln - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to tonanf:

Good for you! 

jkarran - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to tonanf:

So to extend your analogy, what in your opinion is the virus?

jk

cb294 - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to jkarran:

We are. Too many of us...

CB

Post edited at 09:52
jkarran - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to cb294:

> We are. Too many of us...

Perhaps. The other way of looking at it is our extractive exploitative economies are the threat, that we could at 7-10Bn, theoretically at least learn to live within our means.

jk

cb294 - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I agree, but my hopes for that are not high. "Subdue the earth" and all that, nothing much has changed since this was written down 3000 years ago. I fear exploitative economy is engrained in our evolutionary baggage.

CB

bedspring on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Perhaps. The other way of looking at it is our extractive exploitative economies are the threat, that we could at 7-10Bn, theoretically at least learn to live within our means.

> jk


I have just reading something about Australian attitudes to Aboriginals.

The thing that struck me was that Aboroginals do not really even conceive of ownership. That an Aborigianal will not work in a job, once they have enough food, they will just wander off for a week or two. Obviously from a western perspective, we think they are lazy. I have got to think though that their concept is more sustainable in the long term, and that ours ultimately is a form of species suicide. That may be in 100 or 200 years, that may seem a long time off, but as far as our planet is concerned its not even a tick of the clock.
Will I be flying away to foreign parts at Christmas, yes, so to be blunt I cannot really be that bothered, I am a hypercrite.

ianstevens - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> So to extend your analogy, what in your opinion is the virus?

> jk

Capitalism

Phil79 - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to bedspring:

> The thing that struck me was that Aboroginals do not really even conceive of ownership. That an Aborigianal will not work in a job, once they have enough food, they will just wander off for a week or two. Obviously from a western perspective, we think they are lazy. I have got to think though that their concept is more sustainable in the long term, and that ours ultimately is a form of species suicide. That may be in 100 or 200 years, that may seem a long time off, but as far as our planet is concerned its not even a tick of the clock.

Considering the Aboriginals occupied and flourished in Australia for more than 50,000 years before the Europeans arrived, I know which system seems more sustainable!

I think the chances of 'western style' civilisation lasting as long again are about as close to zero as makes no odds. 

Post edited at 12:01
Bob Kemp - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to ianstevens:

I was just going to say that! At least the current form of capitalism-on-steroids with minimal regulation is a significant element. 

jkarran - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Phil79:

> Considering the Aboriginals occupied and flourished in Australia for more than 50,000 years before the Europeans arrived, I know which system seems more sustainable!

The arrival of people in Australia, even living their modest and often lauded hunter gather lifestyles did change the ecosystem eventually driving several extinctions. Things change, they always have.

Civilisation as we know it today will be gone in the blink of an eye but I don't think technological-civilisation as a concept is doomed, it has to change and it will under sufficient pressure.

jk

Phil79 - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> The arrival of people in Australia, even living their modest and often lauded hunter gather lifestyles did change the ecosystem eventually driving several extinctions. Things change, they always have.

Yep, total agree. Humans everywhere seem to have been associated with or responsible for (at least in part) extinction of pleistocene megafauna.

But they still managed a level of equilibrium with their environment, without totally f*****g it up, that we now seem to have lost. 

David Riley - on 07 Dec 2018

It's not possible for everyone on the planet to have the lifestyle we do. Not fair if they can't. Population increase has to stop.

Dax H - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to bedspring:

> I have just reading something about Australian attitudes to Aboriginals.

> The thing that struck me was that Aboroginals do not really even conceive of ownership. That an Aborigianal will not work in a job, once they have enough food, they will just wander off for a week or two. Obviously from a western perspective, we think they are lazy. I have got to think though that their concept is more sustainable in the long term, and that ours ultimately is a form of species suicide. 

Is the aboriginal way sustainable though in the modern world ? From a tribal point of view yes it but the modern world relies on people doing things. When water stops flowing from taps, when electricity nolonger comes to your home and workplace because the guy in charge has gone walkabout what happens ? 

 

bedspring on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Dax H:

> Is the aboriginal way sustainable though in the modern world ? From a tribal point of view yes it but the modern world relies on people doing things. When water stops flowing from taps, when electricity nolonger comes to your home and workplace because the guy in charge has gone walkabout what happens ? 


This is the problem. You apparently can only see it from a consumerist, capitailst, developed standpoint. You cannot see that walking around and just being at one with the environment is an option.
Please do not take offence at that, I like your UKC persona x

Duncan Bourne - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to tonanf:

my take is we could manage the planet and our resourses better but we won't. At some point we will hit the wall, be it war, famine, disease, whatever. Then our population will severely reduce or disappear altogether. After which the planet will slowly recover until it is swallowed by the sun.

Timmd on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Dax H:

> Is the aboriginal way sustainable though in the modern world ? From a tribal point of view yes it but the modern world relies on people doing things. When water stops flowing from taps, when electricity nolonger comes to your home and workplace because the guy in charge has gone walkabout what happens ? 

I was wondering if it's to do with the niche within which the aboriginals lived? If their way of living is constrained by the elements and the environment, their population might reach a certain size before there's not the food and things available to support any more, meaning that within that 'balanced state' it's possible to wander off for a couple of days, because the required food and sources of spring water are already accounted for. 

When it's a built civilisation like in the UK, and where it's too cold to go without heating and what have you, and where our population is the size it is, it's now required that people keep working to provide the water and electricity and gas to ensure a comfortable way of living. 

Post edited at 14:30
Rob Exile Ward on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Dax H:

I'm not sure how great it was being an aboriginal with a toothache, or giving birth, or running out of water. They were low impact because they weren't very good at staying alive for very long - just long enough.

I'm at least 25 years older than I could reasonably have expected to be for most of history and I'm very grateful for that, thanks very much.

Post edited at 14:35
Timmd on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: That, too. I wonder if we only have the tooth aches and things we do because of sugar, but that doesn't mean breaking teeth by accident wouldn't have happened to them in the past, and women wouldn't have died in child birth.

 

Post edited at 14:32
bedspring on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

 

> I'm at least 25 years older than I could reasonably have expected to be for most of history and I'm very grateful for that, thanks very much.

You know this population problem everyone paps on about. Well its not the birth rate thats causes problem, its the death rate or to be more accurate lack of death. You living and the rest of us living longer, is a large part of the problem.

jkarran - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> my take is we could manage the planet and our resourses better but we won't. At some point we will hit the wall, be it war, famine, disease, whatever.

Seems inevitable really. As we won't dispose of our nuclear weapons they will ultimately destroy our civilisations whether that's by design or mistake, whichever comes first.

jk

Timmd on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to bedspring:

> Will I be flying away to foreign parts at Christmas, yes, so to be blunt I cannot really be that bothered, I am a hypercrite.

Awareness is the stage before action.

Edit: Can you look children in the eyes and tell them you aren't bothered? ;-) 

Post edited at 14:53
Rob Exile Ward on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to bedspring:

Yep, sorry about that. 

(Actually you're as wrong as can be; as infant mortality declines then birth rates decline in proportion or even greater. This is one of the good news stories, and one which Bill and above all Melinda Gates have latched on to their great credit - Melinda particularly as she is apparently a 'good' Catholic.)

bedspring on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>

> (Actually you're as wrong as can be; as infant mortality declines then birth rates decline in proportion or even greater. This is one of the good news stories, and one which Bill and above all Melinda Gates have latched on to their great credit - Melinda particularly as she is apparently a 'good' Catholic.)

Ah, sorry about that, must have misunderstood this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

 

Edit:- you are correct about infant mortality, but that does not make me incorrect about death rate

Post edited at 15:13
Duncan Bourne - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to bedspring:

that and the increase in the desire for "Western" lifestyles (ie individual cars, big TV's, Smart phones, etc.) or should i say that as poverty declines more people want these things then the consummer power per person goes up. I don't blame people for wanting these things but then there is the enevitable rise in use of resources

RX-78 on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to bedspring:

Logan's run solution called for??

PeakDJ on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> It's not possible for everyone on the planet to have the lifestyle we do. Not fair if they can't. Population increase has to stop.

Or, perhaps, we need to compromise standards of living in developed countries to allow a rise in living standards in countries that are still "developing".

Of course, that'll never happen because we have been taught to consume at all costs and screw everyone else.  Government economic policy hardly helps with GDP and such measures being considered the be all and end all.  The idea of owning one less car per family or perhaps not spending silly amounts at Christmas, just to offset the environmental impact of someone in India have an electrical supply to their home, or to eat a decent protein source once every few days, is never going to take off with most people....unfortunately.

If recession means people can't afford to buy all the stuff they buy currently that they don't actually need, then perhaps it isn't all bad.  Of course, there would be people at the bottom end who can't afford to meet their basic needs, but just so long as these people aren't within our borders, who cares, right!?

David Riley - on 17:39 Fri
In reply to PeakDJ:

> Or, perhaps, we need to compromise standards of living  Government economic policy hardly helps with GDP and such measures being considered the be all and end all.

Look at the trouble with "nobody voted to be poorer" ?

> Of course, that'll never happen

Exactly.

> screw everyone else. 

You don't then ?

> so long as these people aren't within our borders, who cares, right!?

I was saying the opposite.

Not possible for everyone on the planet to have the lifestyle we do.  + Not fair if they can't. = Population increase has to stop.

Nothing else is going to solve the problems.

PeakDJ on 18:26 Fri
In reply to David Riley:

> You don't then ?

Of course I have an environmental footprint.  I am far from perfect in terms of environmental footprint but once one is born into this world it is too late for that...

We have one small car for the whole family.  I use the car only for longer journeys and cycle to most places I need to go to locally.  We walk to school and back with our daughter.  I frequently have to be away for work and it would be much more convenient to have another car for my wife while I am not here, but we get by without.  We eat very little red meat.  We don't jet off on foreign holidays these days.  We have made a conscious decision not to spend more just because it is Christmas, or for other daft things like birthdays etc.  We wrap up warm and have a tiny home so use minimal energy to heat out home during the colder months.  We grow or forage the majority of our food for about 6 months of the year.   Clothes are repaired where possible rather than replaced.  I could go on but you get the idea...admittedly small, but conscious things we do to reduce our own consumption levels.  Definitely far from perfect, ,but we don't over-consume on anything like the same level as many others around us...

> Not possible for everyone on the planet to have the lifestyle we do.  + Not fair if they can't.

But it is possible, if we  can accept that we need to compromise our own standards of living and stop driving unnecessarily, buying good unnecessarily etc etc.  

Is it "not fair" if those in developing countries don't eventually have a TV in every room, 2 cars per household, eat red meat every day, drive 4WD vehicles because they like an elevated driving position, drive their kids 500m to school, heat their homes to the degree that they can walk around inside in a T-shirt and a pair of boxer shorts inside during Winter etc etc?  I have been guilty of many of these things myself but I have learned that they aren't associated with a good life.  Many of the things associated with a high quality of life are unnecessary, don't make us any happier - and it isn't unfair to deny them to anyone...including ourselves. 

> Population increase has to stop.

Hmmm...there has been one major attempt to curb population growth/explosion and the country involved got a lot of bad press and human rights accusations as a result...but imagine where we'd be in terms of population without that policy.  I am  not sure it is easier to halt population growth any more than it is likely that we will reduce our consumption levels in the West. In any case, if population growth stops, if people in developing countries continue to increase their levels of consumption at current rates, we are probably screwed eventually anyway....unless we slow down our consumption and greed in countries like ours.   

> Nothing else is going to solve the problems.

Maybe something will that we don't know about yet.  

 

Post edited at 18:51
Sean_J - on 18:42 Fri
In reply to tonanf:

#Thanosdidnothingwrong

 

Duncan Bourne - on 19:22 Fri
In reply to jkarran:

It occurs to me that the human race is a bit like a hard drinking, fast living rock star. Always saying that some day it will get itself straight and clean up its act. Then keeling over with a heart attack at 40

David Riley - on 20:35 Fri
In reply to PeakDJ:

You are claiming it's greed and things would be alright if everyone was the same as you. That's not true.

PeakDJ on 21:03 Fri
In reply to David Riley:

> You are claiming it's greed and things would be alright if everyone was the same as you. That's not true.

No...that is not what I am claiming as it is more nuanced than that.  Many people these days, including you it seems, seem determined to distil everything down to a one-line summary, and in doing so they lose the nuance of the situation.  This is what you did with my response.  I am not saying you are wrong, or that I am right.  I am not claiming that things would be alright if everyone was the same as me...  I, and others , would need to do much more for things to be alright.  

I did say that it would probably be as easy to reduce consumption in developed countries than stop population growth.  I also said that stopping population growth alone would not be enough to ensure our long term survival and suggested that perhaps we should do both. You seem determined that stopping population growth is the only answer, but if population remains stable and consumption per capita increases (as it is likely to due to improvements in living standards in the developing world)  then it seems quite clear to me that we will still be inching closer to the precipice.  Of course, if we could reduce the population on the planet enormously, and not just “stop it growing” as you suggest, then we fortunate ones might all be able to continue as we are for a little longer.

 

 

David Riley - on 21:15 Fri
In reply to PeakDJ:

> You seem determined that stopping population growth is the only answer,

I am determined that there is no answer without stopping population growth.

PeakDJ on 07:05 Sat
In reply to David Riley:

> I am determined that there is no answer without stopping population growth.

Agree that it will probably be a part of the solution but  I think it is likely to take care of itself.  There is little or nothing we can or will do on this score.  I also think our priority would be better placed on lowering consumption and environmental impact per capita.

Prioritising the issue of population growth handily takes the emphasis off individual action in terms of lowering consumption and impact.  It could be a useful position for anyone who likes the big house, big car, big Christmas, big foreign holidays etc lifestyle, but doesn’t have kids.  

 

 

Post edited at 07:09
Rob Exile Ward on 07:43 Sat
In reply to David Riley:

Empower women, provide healthcare and the population - not just population growth - will reduce.

And we will all have to recalibrate our lifestyles, with less emphasis on work and consumption, and more on low impact leisure. 

Duncan Bourne - on 08:09 Sat
In reply to bedspring:

It is possible that flight may still be an enviromentally friendly option in the future. New fuels, broad-wing planes and even airships of modern design have been mooted. It depends on the will to develop rather than the feasibility of it. May be even pedal power cars someday

https://www.fastcompany.com/3043490/this-bicycle-travels-as-fast-as-a-car-so-you-can-ride-on-highways

PeakDJ on 08:12 Sat
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Empower women, provide healthcare and the population - not just population growth - will reduce.

> And we will all have to recalibrate our lifestyles, with less emphasis on work and consumption, and more on low impact leisure. 

Totally agree!

David Riley - on 09:49 Sat
In reply to PeakDJ:

> Prioritising the issue of population growth  -  It could be a useful position for anyone who likes the big house, big car, big Christmas, big foreign holidays etc lifestyle, but doesn’t have kids.  

Rightly too.  However wasteful they are, they will still usually do less damage than someone having even a single child.

PeakDJ on 10:29 Sat
In reply to David Riley:

Ha - I thought you might say that ;)  Have you done the maths of what happens if each couple has one child?  

 

David Riley - on 10:42 Sat
In reply to PeakDJ:

That doesn't change anything. Having a child will almost always do more damage than the lifestyle  of someone that does not.

PeakDJ on 12:31 Sat
In reply to David Riley:

> That doesn't change anything. Having a child will almost always do more damage than the lifestyle  of someone that does not.

I agree totally that there is a problem with Western lifestyles, but what's the link with having kids?

You don't seem, clear:  Is it the lifestyles of the people who have kids that are the problem, or the kids themselves and their own footprint?   You skillfully ignored my question about the maths above, where each couple has one child...and this is surely something to consider if you are claiming that people just should not have kids if they care about the environment and the future of our species.   All well and good saying things like "there is no solution that doesn't include stopping population growth" but how?  If each couple has one kid, what happens to population and what happens to our total species environmental footprint if consumption per capita stays at current levels?

I am genuinely all ears and willing to be convinced, but your one line responses that skillfully weave around any points that effectively challenge your un-supported views aren't going to get there.   For example, show me some data that shows that - in general - people who have kids have a more damaging lifestyle themselves than people who do not.  Yes, this ignores the additional environmental footprint of the child throughout their life, but on the other hand, if nobody has kids then our species dies out within a century or so.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought this was a "problem" because we want to ensure the survival of our species in the long term...in which case a lack of reproduction aint going to solve the problem... 

Which leads on to the fact that a desire to produce offspring is definitely a prerequisite for survival of our species.  A part of our evolutionary baggage and an instinct or desire that is probably hard-wired into our biochemistry and neurology.  In contrast, a lifestyle that considers luxuries and conveniences as essential is not.  It has not always existed and need not always exist.  It is something we have created through the stories we weave about nations, trade, money and enconomic systems in general.  We could easily weave alternative stories that would leave us in a much better position, whilst stabilising populations through education, empowerment of women etc, but you seem determined to ignore the arguments in favour of prioritising reduced consumption in the West...I wonder why...as to me it seems fairly glaringly obvious that it is also an essential part of any solution.   If only some people, some of the time should have kids to just ensure the survival of the species, who should have kids and when?  How many?  How exactly would you act on your suggestions to try and reduce or stabilise populations?

 

 

 

Post edited at 12:44
David Riley - on 12:54 Sat
In reply to PeakDJ:

Lifestyle is just not the problem.   In order of increasing damage:

1)  Live like a hermit.
2)  Max out your lifestyle, get ten cars, a private jet, go for it.
3)  Have a single child, but live like a hermit.

I'm not suggesting people should not have children. But they should understand the above.

David Riley - on 13:12 Sat
In reply to PeakDJ:

I'll say it another way:

You have probably exceeded the damage your father has done in his life already. So anything he ever did, like insulating the house, was completely insignificant compared to having you. 

Rob Exile Ward on 13:33 Sat
In reply to David Riley:

What, in your view, is the point of living?

For me, in part at least, it's passing stuff on to the next generation.

David Riley - on 14:59 Sat
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The thread is about the cause of climate change.   Not the meaning of life.

PeakDJ on 20:20 Sat
In reply to David Riley:

> Lifestyle is just not the problem.   In order of increasing damage:

> 1)  Live like a hermit. > 2)  Max out your lifestyle, get ten cars, a private jet, go for it. > 3)  Have a single child, but live like a hermit.

> I'm not suggesting people should not have children. But they should understand the above.

Understand the above and do what?  If you're correct, then if everyone understands the above but still has kids,, why is it useful for them to understand...?

It seems to me that you are indeed suggesting that if people want to act to contribute to lessening their impact, then they should not have kids, as this is the most damage they can do.  But, you see, that is a blinkered approach as - as I have said above - if the concern is for the long term survival of our species, then reproduction is necessary. You have - once again, skilfully ignored the question about who should have kids, how many?  It is clearly essential for the survival of our species and a hard-wired part of our being.  Of course, one could take the view that there is no real imperative, apart from an imagined one, for our species to survive indefinitely - but you suggest the fact that we are endangering ourselves is a "problem" above.

> You have probably exceeded the damage your father has done in his life already. So anything he ever did, like insulating the house, was completely insignificant compared to having you. 

No...all the little things he did like insulating his house and all the other little things that people could do, all add up and will lessen our impact on our environment.  They won't make things perfect, but not insignificant.  All the little things people do add up to offset a part of the damage done elsewhere.  

I think our species will die out eventually, as will most living things....we are deluded to feel that we will survive forever.  Other species, more suited to the changed conditions on the planet, will probably evolve.  What the home insulation and other little things might do is prolong the survival of our species.  

 

Post edited at 20:24
Lusk - on 20:26 Sat
In reply to David Riley:

Have I got this right?
The biggest threat to humanity is population, and one of the, if not the greatest, threats is having children.
But, if we don't have children, humanity will disappear in a generation!

MG - on 20:30 Sat
In reply to Lusk:

We could (must, I would say) reduce the population. That doesn't mean no children but one or at most two is a sensible approach, as is removing tax incentives for having children, and increasing social criticism for those with three or more. 

David Riley - on 20:44 Sat
In reply to MG:

>  increasing social criticism for those with three or more. 

You are right. That's the issue. Not accepting each child adds to over population.

Post edited at 20:45
PeakDJ on 21:01 Sat
In reply to David Riley:

You’re agreeing with MG here but in your prior posts you’ve been saying something different.

jethro kiernan - on 09:01 Sun
In reply to tonanf:Rampant consumerism is propably going to be the death of society as we know it.

Basic health care and the infustructure to support health such as clean water aren’t reliant on rampant consumerism and cost relatively little.

most of what my money goes on is not the essentials (apart from a roof over my head which is vastly out of proportion to what it should be) but on crap, I can kid myself my new scarpa boots are essential and that I need the 5 gloves I’m taking up to Scotland but at the end of the day like most people the majority of my working life is spent earning for non essentials (or as in the case of the house have become monetised to the extrem)

im aware of this on a personal level with regards work life balance and I’m aware of it on an environmental level and am trying to change it but it is extremely difficult and ultimately futile on an individual basis.

we really do need to vote to make ourselves poorer, because that is the only way, less scarpa a, le crueset cooksets, Canada goose jackets, spa breaks whatever your poison is we need less of it.

that doesn’t mean we cant refocus as a society, ultimately most of us would like to work fewer hours and spend some of our time on something constructive, wether it be spending time with ageing relatives, voluntary work etc.

Post edited at 09:23
JoshOvki on 09:36 Sun
In reply to David Riley:

I am with you on this one. Biggest impact you can have to help the environment is not to have children. I also get you are not saying everyone shouldn't have kids which is what some people are latching onto. People will always breed, but if you want to limit your ecological impact then don't.

summo on 17:34 Sun
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> Rampant consumerism 

>  le crueset cooksets

I can pick only one fault. If people buy quality built to last good, they are likely to keep the next generation going too and we will consume less in the long run. But folk will rather spend less now and buy something else they didn't really need with the money.

The problem is there is little or no consumer pressure on manufacturers. We just got a new battery for our cordless hoover, it pretty much cost the same as jbuying a whole new hoover. I imagine most people would have replaced the whole thing. 

Lusk - on 17:41 Sun
In reply to summo:

Why not just have a vacuum cleaner that plugs into the wall?  You've been taken in hook, line and sinker by the adverts.  You still got to plug the charger in! World's obsessed with convenience.

 

I agree with you on stuff like Le Creuset, I've got pans me mother gave us, they are decades old.  They'll probably go to the kids as well.  Bit beaten up, but they're just fucking cooking pans for use at home after all!  No poncy image to keep up round my house.

Post edited at 17:49
Timmd on 17:53 Sun
In reply to jethro kiernan:

We need to think about what it is we actually 'need'.  I read some cool lyrics in a cartoon which were 'You buy new things even though you don't need them, and as long as you're happy it feels like freedom'. 

It's struck a chord in me - that leaves me trying to get away from building a lifestyle that relies on having new things for having things sake.  I'm not sure if we do have to vote to make ourselves poorer, not if we think about 'need' rather than 'want' (which is always going to be a subjective thing). 

I'm 'a typical cyclist' in having that weird urge to keep buying new (to me) frames and bits and pieces to build onto them to make into bikes, but I've rationalised it down to having one (second hand) Cotic steel disc road frame, and reusing parts that I have already, with the only pieces which I have to source new (with safety in mind) are the alloy handlebars and stem and seat post (I'd like any failure due to metal fatigue to be down to me). My plan is that the disc wheels I need to get for it will go on indefinitely if I have cup and cone hubs, with only the rotors wearing out, and if the other parts are reused or second hand, that's greener than buying a new bike, and I'll help to keep me happier and healthier, in being my bike to ride out for circuits around the Peak on, and commuting to places too. It'll complement the mountain bike I already have, and serve as a big 'full stop' in my mind because I'll know I don't have a purpose for anything else bike related, even if I'd like to. It doesn't scratch the 'new and shiny' itch, but scratching that itch doesn't last anyway. 

There's a lot of wisdom in buying decent quality fewer times if you're lucky enough to be able to afford that, my parents/Dad and step Mum have always done that, and I've inherited some decent stuff which will last me as well. There's a helpful overlap of saving money and being green sometimes, my rucksack from 1995 could either be thrown away or repaired, and a nice modern one would be a cool thing to have, but it's still a bag on my back to put things in, and repairing it to see if it lasts until I stop being active is an interesting experiment. Hopefully at 38 that'll be 40 years from now or beyond.

I've started repairing clothing or having that done, and taking old outdoor clothing to bits to re use zips and toggles or fabric, to avoid buying new, or to extend the life of something else. It can take up time, though, so it depends on what else one has to do, or the urgency of the task.

Post edited at 18:20
summo on 18:01 Sun
In reply to Lusk:

Plug in versus battery. Good point, cables are a pain. So yes, perhaps lazy convenience, because it is fast and easy to blast around all rooms, especially as it's all hard floors (no carpets). It's done 7 years though, so not bad. See what goes next, battery or bearings. The scam is that it cost around £100 for a battery that is actually just 20xAAs soldered together. 

Rob Exile Ward on 18:11 Sun
In reply to Timmd:

Funnily enough when I started climbing it was a point of pride that you DIDN'T have new gear - even if you knew there was better stuff out there you didn't necessarily run out to buy it.

As it happens I was climbing this summer with crampons that I've had for 40+ years (actually I think they may be 48 years old...) and boots and a couple of axes that are at least 25 years old... I think that probably constitutes sustainable consumption. 

jethro kiernan - on 18:17 Sun
In reply to summo:

Actually le crueset was a bad example as I’m using one that I inherited from my mother 40 years old and it will keep going, I am all for buying quality if it lasts, unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be a driver for most purchases nowadays.

Timmd on 19:32 Sun
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: I get that impression about not having new gear. It's nice to have a couple of decent suits and things, and to not feel down at heal clothing wise, but there can be a consumption treadmill. I find it interesting that advertising can be seen as a an area of work which is unethical by Buddhists, because of it encouraging desire for material things and a sense of not being fulfilled unless one has them. Along with the environmental impact, and that of people spending money and getting into debt, and potentially missing our on other 'more wholesome' things as a result. Maybe humanity needs to target advertising to start to cause a shift in how we all live?

 

Post edited at 19:48
Timmd on 13:12 Mon
cb294 - on 13:20 Mon
In reply to Timmd:

Wooden ones also last for years, the majorities of those I use were bought in the 90s. How many centuries would it take to offset the energy costs for producing steel ones?

CB

summo on 13:23 Mon
In reply to cb294:

> Wooden ones also last for years, the majorities of those I use were bought in the 90s. How many centuries would it take to offset the energy costs for producing steel ones?

Also. 2 wooden clothes pegs, 2 nails, 1 piece of wood, 1 elastic band... equals an old school nerf gun. 

 

Post edited at 13:23
Timmd on 13:37 Mon
In reply to cb294:

> Wooden ones also last for years, the majorities of those I use were bought in the 90s. How many centuries would it take to offset the energy costs for producing steel ones?

> CB

I was wondering that too. I guess things like one's personal footprint as a whole is what ultimately counts - how much one generally consumes, and the steel ones can be recycled into something else too. I'm half thinking that having got to the age of 38 without flying on holiday I can justify steel clothes pegs. Having them snap and rust and become unpegged in high winds is a bug bear.  

Post edited at 13:47
jethro kiernan - on 14:02 Mon
In reply to Timmd:

I suspect they will break the lawn mower :-/ 

I try and use the wooden ones at least they compost and don't break the plastic disposable lawn mower.

 

tonanf - on 20:26 Tue
In reply to tonanf:

when your going on holiday, what it is your going on holiday from, is the virus.


Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.