UKH

I can't believe how little talk there is around sustainability and climbing? Can we start here please. How many bouldering mats are there in the world, what's the carbon footprint of flying to Siriana, how much energy does it take to make a Cam? When there are wildfires throughout Europe every summer and we all happily get in our petrol camper and, I can't believe as a community we are being so blind to the impact of our sport

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

I've never owned a mat, all my cams are probably older than you. I've never owned a camper and I've flown once in the last 10 years. And I post to UKC using organic passenger pigeon.

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

Not sure what the point is here?

A bouldering mat probably has the same impact as a foam mattress and a cam as a hand tool. All of these are purchases that can last for a decade or more. 

The travel aspect has been done multiple times on here.

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

What are your specific suggestions? How are you approaching the matter yourself?

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

I don't think climbing is a particularly wasteful pursuit. A lot of my gear is 10 years old, I couldn't tell you how many mobile phones I've had in that time but it's got to be at least 4.

In the UK 15% of the people take 70% of the flights- theres no solid data on this but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's not climbers in that percentage.

I do think about the amount of driving I do but there's little option in the UK. I was meeting a friend in Wales and could get  a lift back with him. The one way train fair was about £60 whereas the fuel normally costs about £30 and the journey is about 1 hour quicker. Needless to say I took my car.

The biggest issue with the move to net zero is that people feel like it's going to impact their standard of living. It doesn't need to, it just needs a drive from the top to stop those with the most continuing to rinse people/the planet.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

He only boulders when there's a snow drift or a luxuriant carpet of moss beneath the problem, and his ropes are woven from vines.

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

As in a previous post; it's not a sport.

In reply to HammondR:

Depends entirely what you mean by sport. 

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

Agreed. How lovely would it be knowing the World will carry on after we've popped our clogs and the children will indeed inherit the Earth. We can no longer believe in this, a tragedy of our age. Really don't get why there's so much opposition to the OP. There's cool /aloof and then there's mindless cynicism 

In reply to MG:

John Porter makes the point in his piece, on this very site That 

"Let's play a game of 'spot the odd one out':

a) World Cup Climbing Competitions

b) Alpine climbing

c) The World Badminton Championship

d) Kristin Harila and Tenjin Sherpa's 14 x 8,000m peaks race

Of course, the answer is alpine climbing. The others are all sports, and alpine climbing is not a sport"

Now fair enough, he does identify the organised meh of World Cup Climbing Competitions as being a sport.

What this post appears to be about is not a sport. 

And let's not get into Hemingway. What did he know?!

In reply to MG:

When I see people post that they think climbing isn't a sport, it always appears to be a form of exceptionalism, in which aspects of an activity they don't identify with - usually a competitive structure - are so objected to that they throw out the entire classification of it being a sport in order to try to separate it from overtly competitive pursuits. An interesting question would be why people feel a desire to be recognised as being separate from the herd?

In reality, climbing is clearly a sport in the same way as are snowboarding, mountain biking, surfing, etc., each of which has a competitive arm but for each of which most practitioners are in competition only with themselves in trying to achieve personal goals or fulfilment from a physical and technical discipline.

In reply to Lankyman:

Snap! 1981 vintage

In reply to HammondR:

I'd say he was quite perceptive with his quote.

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

Complain on the internet and fail to include any potential solutions.

That'll fix it!!

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

So non of you think we should have a conversation about how to make climbing carbon neutral? We just carry on and say it's OK we, as a community engaged in our hobyy/sport/lifestyle (not really up for a semantics distraction) don't produce as much carbon as others? I have no point beyond wanting to start a discussion. I am not carbon neutral but also have old gear, no car, climb regularly at the rocks, and rarely fly. This isn't about individuals and defensive responses are not a helpful, though expected part of the conversation. Can we move beyond that and talk about how to make the hobyy/sport/lifestyle carbon neutral? 

In reply to bouldery bits:

I don't think I ever complained, I asked to have a conversation, non of us are carbon neutral 

In reply to john arran:

Thanks John, but I also don't want this as a discussion 9of what climbing is, just asking if anyone has ideas for how to take climbing forward and how to be sustainable, crowd sourcing ideas

In reply to mik82:

You're right mik, but mats are still made using an oil based product, are there alternatives, is anyone looking into this? I'm asking out of curiosity, not accusation

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

I think it's a reasonable discussion. What do you propose? I'd say travel is the big issue really.

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

I agree, I think travel is one of the biggest issues, loads of us, me included, fly abroad on climbing holidays and travel to crags roi d the country. Though this summer I went to Lundy for a week all by train, bus and boat, which was easy. Lots of the extra paraphernalia could be reduced, people getting massage guns and fans to climb on hot days, is it really necessary? Wait until dusk or do something else? Loads of our kit is made from oil based products? Are there alternatives any companies are doing R&D  about this? 

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

I can't think of anything. Unless we cycle to the crags and don't buy stuff. Neither of which are going to happen. 

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

I think we have to accept that some things are still going to need plastics and oil in their manufacture - particularly when something is safety critical and materials need to be carefully chosen. It's much better to go after the things that are actually having the impact rather than chasing minimal gains. If a bouldering mat was used for a few problems and then discarded it would be a different matter. 

I'm sure it would be possible to make a pad with latex foam and a canvas cover, and it would be nice to say it's sustainable and biodegradeable -  but will the latex and cotton production actually be any more sustainable?

In reply to Dave Ferguson:

I think you thought of something. Why can't we cycle to the crags? Would it help if there were a few bolts you could lock your bike to rather than creating car parks.

In reply to john arran:

It's not exceptionalism, it's just differentiating two different sorts of things. The subset of climbing which is competitive climbing is a sport but the activity as a whole isn't. Climbing as an activity just feels a very different sort of thing to sports I have taken part in. I think the problem is that there isn't really an entirely satisfactory word for climbing and other such activities.

No, all activities with, like climbing, a subset which is a sport.

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

Just look at the supply chain for my fancy pants, mega sticky Scarpa Dragos. That alone is a climate disaster. 

You are right, our sport is pretty bad for the environment.

It's better than many other ways to spend our limited time on the planet. It seems to me that fixing climbing is really not the priority. Fixing the environmental impact of humans being alive is the priority. The stupid pastime we engage in to try and give each of our alloted pointless minutes some sort of meaning is not the place to start for fixing the human race's environmental ills. 

In reply to leland stamper:

I train and cycle to crags a lot, but I live in Sheffield so it's pretty easy. The latex and canvas idea is interesting, it might have potential, possibly we just need to start asking manufacturers what they are doing to help, can they help.

I totally agree that the kit needs to be made from plastics to be safe, just asking the question I guess. And maybe we need to understand better just how long the kit lasts... And ask ours selves the question when we buy kit, do we really need it? Then aylt least we might not buy as much stuff

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

There is a system call EPD for communicating the environmental impact of products, the problem is its not been widely adopted for business-to-consumer sales. I've had a quick look and i cant find a single EPD for any piece of climbing equipment. Lots of BS though, e.g. https://www.scarpa.co.uk/planet-friendly/

The question is, if Climbing shoe A was £100 and had a published CO2 footprint of 20kg, and Climbing shoe B was £125 and had a published CO2 footprint of equivalent of 5kg, and assuming performance and lifetime were equal,would consumers choose shoe B? I like to think they would.

However that doesn't really matter since at the moment we don't get given that information anyway.

Anyone from the industry know if we'll start seeing EPDs? It could be a competitive advantage in being an early adopter, I see lots of vegan skwama about, so why not a low-carbon skwama with an EPD to prove it?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think various dictionary definitions and Wikipedia have the correct wider definition of a sport and you are describing competitive sport. The Wikipedia definition is below:

"Sport pertains to any form of physical activity or game, often competitive and organized, that aims to use, maintain, or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants and, in some cases, entertainment to spectators."

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

How about doing activities that are local, rather than travelling all over the place. 

Living in the south east now, means I rarely climb, still use my gear for the odd  bit of tree climbing fun, but other activities I can do are right from my doorstep.

Best not mention the quest for lightweight (non durable) kit. Is that new jacket that weighs 10 grammes less, really going to make a difference to your "performance" of walking up a hill. 

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

I suspect that if people were to put as much effort into lobbying governments to tax airline fuel equitably with rail or road fuel, that would have a far greater impact than tinkering with the materials our climbing kit is made from.

But I know which is more likely.

And before anyone asks: no, I haven't lobbied anyone.

In reply to Offwidth:

Fair enough. Simply doesn't ring true to me though. As I said, I think we lack a satisfactory word  for and some other activities even if we accept that they are a type of sport.

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

This is a common UKC topic, often with grumpy replies (some maybe driven by guilt, others by a few idiot deniers).

I think we always need to break the problem down:

First and foremost this is a global political issue but with an urgency based on clear science. As such, it needs major democratic pressure on governments across the world to get them to work together. Protest and joining political lobbying organisations can be a way individuals can do their bit to help, on top of voting.

Individual change is morally good but it simply won't change the issue above. We also can't realistically expect everyone to 'wear hair shirts'. There is loads people can do to reduce consumption (mostly obvious) and where travel is necessary, to offset (my preference is donating and/or volunteering in charities involved in moorland and salt marsh improvements, as this both captures more carbon than most forestry offsets and prevents more serious degradation in those environments, that could release huge amounts of carbon).

Science may also help us out but sadly any serious impact looks too slow and/or high risk (sadly we might end up with no choice).

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

These are interesting questions to raise but (and I’m afraid there is a ‘but’) I think considering the impact of our climbing is almost (but not totally) irrelevant. Yes, by all means drive less to climb, fly less to climb (or not at all), reduce, reuse, repair and recycle gear as much as possible…. but if you really want to make a difference insulate your home properly, turn the thermostat down, and cut out meat from your diet. It’s still pissing in the wind compared to what’s actually needed (global cooperation at govt levels to implement green measures that will actually make a difference) but if I want to look at my carbon footprint, buying a ‘sustainably produced’ bouldering mat once every five years is absolutely trivial compared to turning my thermostat down a bit all winter, every year for the next five years. That’s just a little example but I think it makes my point. 
Yes, absolutely, have the conversation, and make the climbing  lifestyle changes, and purchasing decisions that you think will help, but the impact of your climbing-related lifestyle choices is probably pretty trivial compared to the choices you make as part of your daily life (warmth and food). 
That said, I’m probably wrong, so pile on with some educating! I’m all ears. 

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

I think your going for pretty high hanging fruit here.

You emit 20 tonnes of CO2 just breathing through your life. I plan and making no effort to reduce that in any way.

There's enough for people to worry about without having to add concern and guilt about something with as little impact as climbing.

As always with these conversations I point out that the solution by and large will come from technology development and investment in infrastructure. Not reducing quality of life.

But if you do want to make a change, not eating meat, if not doing so already will dwarf any reduction from not climbing. 

In reply to john arran:

It would make no difference. Flight connections would just avoid the UK, and UK flyers would get around the problem by changing at Paris for example.

Flying would need a global approach.

A global reduction in flight speeds could be possible, and would open up other technology options also, which would bring cost reduction incentives to support implementation.

In reply to montyjohn:

Show your working.

Going vegan: ~1000 kg co2e/yr

One trip to Greece/Spain: ~800 kg co2e

Having a crag dog: 770-2500 kg co2e/yr

It's the long distance travel (n.b. I didn't say flying, I said travel) that does it. Read this thread: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/climbing_flying_and_carbon_emis...

In reply to montyjohn:

The same can be said about almost all change.

It's not an excuse for inaction.

Be the change you want to see and all that.

International consensus for a global approach will be difficult, but it will be helped by individual countries taking action.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Snap is probably what they'll do if you fall on them 😂😉. 

In reply to montyjohn:

If only we were part of a major global trading area that could agree to make such a positive change without simply being ignored and circumvented by the rest of the world.

In reply to montyjohn:

Respiration is, of course, carbon neutral. 

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

That thread was fun, informative and frustrating.

MG's prediction on UK offshore wind has certainly hit a hitch this week in those auctions.

Your avocado exaggeration was my favourite of yours ever (an elasticated but well intentioned point) but overall children, pets, proper carbon budgets for travel and the nature of food miles and carbon impact of specific food production really do matter.

In the end red jerry made the most important point in my view. People think they make a big difference being 'good' but they really don’t, especially if they attack other ordinary people for being less good. We need to be angry with slow government progress more than setting good examples. That's not just in energy generation and transport, it's also in protecting carbon sinks like forests, peat bogs, salt marshes etc.

In reply to im off:

what do you mean ‘if’ 😂

those slings are probably 30 years old….

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

“There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.”

is the Hemingway quote 

In reply to barry donovan:

I believe that there is some doubt as to whether this is actually a Hemingway quote.

In reply to FactorXXX:

And if it was it's utter nonsense anyway.

In reply to Offwidth:

Those auctions were for the pretty distant future. There's a fair few more unaffected GW that will be built in the next few years. 

I stand by the avocado thing. It's a great symbol of the swing-and-a-miss attitude that so many people can be driven to by reading the well-intended but over-simplified stuff we're bombarded with.

Food miles is a another great example; growing stuff in a heated greenhouse nearby vs importing is not a simple 'its always better' argument. As I'm sure you're aware but not convinced everyone is, food miles and carbon impact do not equate.

There's so much advice out there suggesting counterproductive, or conditionally but not always better, things just because someone hasn't though it through.

In reply to Offwidth:

Indeed.  Absurd.  But will still happen in time (or 10s of £ billion in investment wasted)

In reply to Pedro50:

Do you  not think there is some truth in the idea that to really appreciate something you have to risk losing it, including your life.  If so, giving a name to doing so, such as sport in a somewhat old fashioned sense, doesn't seem unreasonable.  I'd certainly say there is difference between

a) big-game  hunting where you might get eaten, mountaineering where you are truly on your own and may get killed vs

b) Blasting away at pheasants with no risk at all.  Indoor climbing with everything made safe.

In reply to MG:

Laughable that you'ld say shoots have no risk (a very minority activity with way too many accidents) and to a lesser extent walls (but where it's sad so many accidents are easily avoidable).

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I agree with more focus on things like avocados, it was the idea that vegans were ruining the world with them that was the ridiculous exaggeration..

The biggest volume food issue I know is Brazilian beef where deforestation happens both to run farms and to provide food for them (and then long food miles). To equate eating local UK beef with this is just nuts.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yeah, I think we're violently agreeing with each other again here.

In reply to Offwidth:

If you can't see a fundamental difference between my examples you are a bit odd.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Yeah just looked up quote and . . . now with a bit more digging of ‘was this attributed to Hemingway ?’

There are a load of other contenders. 

In reply to mik82:

But if oil is largely phased out, are you going to accept that the price of products still containing oil are going to increase hugely?

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

If oil is no longer being burnt but just used for materials, won't the price drop rather than rise?

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

Which isn’t and never will be carbon neutral.

In reply to TechnoJim:

it still releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Your taking carbon that's locked up in plants or animals, eating them, and exhaling the carbon.

You could burn down the entire Amazon, argue it's carbon neutral, but CO2 levels in the atmosphere would still increase.

In reply to montyjohn:

But if the plants and animals have been grown or bred for eating, the whole process is carbon neutral. Though not if the Amazon has been cut down to make space for the animals.

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

It’s on us all to try and mitigate the impacts of living and breathing. Governments and businesses are like supertankers, painfully slow to change direction. Do your bit and cut down, don’t wait for The Man, lead and they’ll eventually follow. I live a lower carbon lifestyle but climbing is definitely is an indulgence. Travel. But you’ll have to wrestle that off me. I’ll carry on doing all the rest and try and offset the hit from this glorious, stupid sport elsewhere.

In reply to montyjohn:

It's approximately steady state. Burning the Amazon is anything but 

In reply to montyjohn:

Which is then resequestered in plants that are being grown for my future meals. 

Entirely different from the mass release of stored carbon for heating, transport etc.

In reply to MG:

Drilling for oil isn’t cheap. There’s massive demand at the moment, so the economics of scale work. Who’s going to commit to the expense of discovery and production when people aren’t burning it and are cutting it out of their manufacturing process wherever possible in search of being green. Seems straight forward?

In reply to Robert Durran:

If half the population vanished tomorrow, half the farmland wouldn't be needed and would presumably return to forest. In doing so you would lock up carbon.

I'm not advocating to reduce the population by the way. Reduced fertility rates are already a concern.

In reply to montyjohn:

True, and that would be better than neutral. But you seemed to be saying that growing food, then eating it was not neutral.

In reply to HammondR:

The Cambridge dictionary disagrees with you.

1. A game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job: 

2. All types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment:

In reply to MG:

No, because if oil is extracted but mainly used for plastics and the other elements refined out are never sold as liquid fuel, what you then have is very expensive plastics, because the drilling and exploration costs haven't decreased, companies need to recover all their costs before they can make a profit. Recycled plastic could become quite valuable, start hoarding now! 

In reply to ExiledScot:

I feel like there’s 101 other uses for the other crude distillates, rather than just setting them on fire, so it seems there’ll be a long tail for producers who have easy to access reservoirs and therefore low overheads. I read that plastics account for around 4-8% total oil usage currently. There also seems to be a decent stab being made at non oil based plastics too, which may form the answer. 

"... there is some doubt as to whether this is actually a Hemingway quote. And if it was it's utter nonsense anyway."

I have always taken it to be about consequences, & to that extent quite reasonable.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Essentially what you're saying here is that you can reduce your carbon eq. emissions by 4-5 Spain trips per year simply by not owning a dog or eating dead animals and animal products. Pretty simple swaps there I would say.

In reply to montyjohn:

You resale this CO2 is re-absorbed by new plants, which you then eat, respire etc etc. But of course why would you look up the carbon cycle at all, when you can spout rubbish here? 

To add: 20kg is the same as burning roughly 9L of petrol in a car. So what, a 120km trip? Think about the orders of magnitude here. 

In reply to ianstevens:

Where are you getting 20kg from?

In reply to twentytwoangrymen:

In reply to Robert Durran:

Not intentionally

It's not as simple to say that what you breath out gets absorbed by plants and therefore it has no impact on CO2 levels in the atmosphere as this isn't true. 

For example, forests may typically collect twice as much CO2 as what they release and act as a carbon sink. https://www.wri.org/insights/forests-absorb-twice-much-carbon-they-emit-eac... storing that carbon in the soil (and biomass if it's a growing forest).

Apparently, there is 60 billion square miles of farmland worldwide (https://www.farmlandriches.com/farmland-acres-worldwide/#:~:text=Approximat....). So that's 7.5 square miles per person. It's a huge number. I appreciate a lot of that is for feeding animals, but most of those are for human consumption anyway.

Finger in the air, but if 50% of that 7.5 square miles per person could be returned to forest, and the forest absorbed 1 tonne per year per square mile (https://www.carbonindependent.org/76.html) , then that's 3.75 tonnes per year per person.

So yes, the 20 tonnes is misleading and over simplified, but the answer isn't zero either.

In reply to montyjohn:

Misread your post, sorry. We can add in the orders of magnitude, which still makes your (already in balance re: CO2 emissions anyway) number equivalent to a 120,000km of driving a petrol car - so I'd guess about 5 years of transport for your average car user.

In reply to montyjohn:

I haven't checked your numbers, but you are (I assume) accidentally making a great point here: farming animals is an environmental disaster, so maybe we should stop. 

In reply to ianstevens:

I try to refrain form telling people what to eat, but I would be very happy if farming animals ended.

What I would argue for is to end subsidies for animal farming. I don't see why I should be subsidising food I don't eat. 

In reply to montyjohn:

Really amusing to see internet debates.
The website you qoute actually says 59.3 Billion Miles, which is rather interesting as the page starts of speaking about Acres, but then all of a sudden is talking of square miles, I wonder if they are getting acres and miles mixed up here, hmmm?

Now my lazy google has taken me to https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/earth.htm#:~:text=Area%20of%20land%3.... which says, "Area of land: 148 326 000 km2 (57 268 900 square miles), this are 29% of the total surface of Planet Earth." So am I correct in saying the total land of all the world is 57 Million 268 thousand and 900 miles, so a bit of a tight squeeze to fit in your 60 Billion Square Miles.

 

In reply to Godwin:

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use#definitions-of-agricultural-land-use

In reply to Godwin:

yes I clearly have quoted incorrect units there. Doh.

This site claims 5 billion hectares https://www.fao.org/sustainability/news/detail/en/c/1274219/

Which is about 20 million square miles or 12 billion acres so I can't get 60B to work with any units.

It should have been obvious when I calculated 7.5 square miles per person but I didn't try to visualise it (I have a mild fever today so I'm giving myself a pass this time). 

Anyway, the revised figures is about 3% of a square miles per person, which only equates to a measly 30kg of sequestered CO2 per year per person. 

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

As has been re-iterated multiple times above already.

The gear is not a big thing (they do tend to last for quite a time... unlike say instant fashion).

So in all likelyhood, travel is the one that counts... Especially if you fly a lot. But even local drive to crag, multiple times a month will add up. As an example a few of my friends were pushing for vegetarian diet (due to it being better for the environment)... But then happily flew to SA for some bouldering... Flights to SA in CO2 emission correspond to roughty 0.5kg of beef per day per year. Now vegetarian diet is indeed good for the environment (broadly speaking) and also a lot better for numerous ethical reason (some of the farm animals are put to so much suffering, simply 'cause one likes some spam). But the houlier than attitude, when coupled with lot's of international flights... is just irkin' people.  That being said, even if you take personal actions to limit your footprint... someone from say Chine will simply take your spot in the footprint ladder.. So global incentives for better actions are needed (the carrot and stick approach.... do good, get a carrot... do bad, and get a whoopin'). 

The often overlooked part is your actual "footprint" on the approach trails, route/boulder base and also changes on the fauna (also on the actual rock). 

In reply to Godwin:

And a large percentage of the agricultural land is pastureland which is effectively useless for growing crops.

In reply to montyjohn:

We all subsidise things that we don't use, we don't get to pick and choose based on our own personal choices.

In reply to timjones:

Some subsidies are more justifiable than others. Animal farming isn't one of them.

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

Sad fact of the matter is we are too successful as a species and are basically overpopulating the world at a way faster rate than we can come up with strategies to negate the impact it has.

People talk about 'saving the planet' and 'saving the world' but in fact its saving the human species they are referring to. The 'planet' would get along just fine if we all disappeared tomorrow.

In reply to montyjohn:

It would be good for a proper unbiased study, impacts of differing diets, cost, health long term, imports, carbon cost etc.. where the emotions on animal welfare are put to one side. Compare classic mixed, veggie, vegan, pesca etc.. can you eat a genuine healthy balance whilst minimise carbon foot print/imports, or are problems simply offshored as people chase essential nutrients in winter. Could we have say 500g of meat per week, would uk non arable fields be able to produce that much? 

In reply to montyjohn:

TBH, this is all fiddling whilst Rome burns, I would prefer it if the IPCC came out an gave clear guidance on a country level of what we personally could/ should do.
Then people could either do it, or not, a clear personal choice.
But a look at their website is so complex,  https://www.ipcc.ch , even someone with some interest will soon lose interest.
Personally I think the IPCC is now more interested in being the IPCC, than giving clear information to citizens on how they could/ should chose to behave.

A consistent message though is eating less/no meat is better for the planet.

In reply to ianstevens:

I will just pretend I love horses, but won't get one to save the planet and will now drive weekly the length of the uk to climb. Or just do what most do stick 100mm in the loft, fit a few LEDs and carry on as normal. 

In reply to Godwin:

That's not their job though, is it, they aren't a government.  Their role is assessing the science, as they say "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.", which they do very well, given the political context.

In reply to MG:

Then possibly the United Nations should give the advice.
Climate Change is a collective action problem and something that individual countries struggle to deal with in a competitive world. Due to political realities, possibly nations need leading by the actions of their citizens.
Everyone seems to want to push away responsibility, to other nations or other people or other generations.
Mind it is possible I am wrong, a technological solution as has always seemed to happened in the past will be found, and Homo sapiens will roll on, business as usual.

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

For the majority of climbers the environmental impact of climbing specific equipment is going to negligible compared to the impact of driving. Ignore fuel and tyre wear briefly and consider the car, or worse van, itself. The average UK car scrappage age is 14 years. Let's assume that you replace your climbing equipment every 7 years and that 1/3rd of your miles are for climbing. Cars and climbing gear are made from similarish materials, steel, aluminium, maybe proportionally more plastics in a car. Average uk car weight is 1400 kg. Total climbing rack included rope and maybe 20 kg. Car has 70 times as much material, gear replaced twice as often, and 1/3rd of thr car's footprint is attributable to climbing and this gives the climbing related portion of the manufacturing footprint of the car approx 12x the environmental impact of the gear. Some fairly crude assumptions in there but gives a rough idea. Throw in fuel use and tyre wear amd the impact of the car blows that of the gear out of the water as most of the co2 related to a car are from its use, not its manufacture. Reports are divided on whether we need to reduce mileage to hit our carbon reduction targets even if we ban new fossil fuel cars with several reports estimating that we need a 20%-25% drop by 2030 to hit our 2030 targets let alone net zero. 0.48 cars per person in the UK with each of those 7400 miles per year. So, if you're clocking up more than 3700 miles per person at the moment in a fossil fueled car (or mayb edouble that in an electricvehicle?) then you're already out of step with where the nation aims to be from a transport perspective. Crags are never going to be that well served by public transport, especially for those travelling from further afield, so yes climbing as a whole probably does have a sustainability problem. This could be an existential problem for outdoors climbing for those who live in the flatter bits of the country apart from the current government has explicitly said that it will not enact any green policies that curtail your ability to do what you want 

In reply to Danbow73:

Climbers as a whole are likely to be from a higher socioeconomic group than the population on average, just because in the lowest socioeconomic groups the option to pursue a hobby that isn't that cheap probably isn't there. 

45% of households earn less than £30k per annum, and 23% don't own a car. Are households containing climbers the same? 

At the same time, c50% of the population don't fly in a given year - do 50% of climbers?

I suspect that there are plenty of climbers in the 15% who take a lot of flights. There are probably worse offenders, like those who effectively commute by plane or those do a lot of business travel, but I doubt we are all on the side of the saints.

Random link full of numbers:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214367X21000466#:~:text...

In reply to AJM:

I also found this, on distribution (table 5.5)

https://inequalityintransport.org.uk/exploring-transport-inequality/who-tra...

Suggests that if you take 2+ return trips by plane per year you are in the top quarter of aviation users (if 50% don't fly, and 45% of those who do take a single annual trip, that suggests c75% of the population are on 0-1 return trips per annum, with the remaining c25% in the 2+ bucket)

I'm sure different data could show different results, but in terms of a broad brush I know a lot of climbers who wouldn't think twice about an Easter and autumn trip to Spain/Kaly/etc, and several who do multiple long weekend style trips per year.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I like how you have tape to identify them as yours….i can’t imagine that’s a problem often 😀

In reply to Godwin:

Yes, I agree  - everyone points at someone else.  Politically there isn't a body that can give "orders" globally, it has to be done by consensus.  The UN sponsored COP meetings are what aim at this, with some success but a lot of delay.

https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/supreme-bodies/conference-of-the-parties-...

In reply to Graham Booth:

I've still got (and regularly use) rigid-stemmed Friends. Nothing wrong with 'em.

In reply to MG:

But can you imagine how crazy the conspiracy theorists would go if the UN actually started dishing out statements about how individuals in each country should change their lifestyles? They'd be frothing at the mouth on every right-wing media platform and from all angles on social media.

WORLD GOVERNMENT IS COMING FOR YOUR CAR

NEW WORLD ORDER BANNING PETS AND CHILDREN

UN DEATH SQUADS WILL EXPLODE YOUR BRAIN USING COVID VACCINE IMPLANTS IF YOU EAT MEAT

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I’ve got a double set up to Friend 4 which I bought on by one from a climbing shop near the station in Nottingham, so 1981. They’ve been all over the world on cragging trips. I guess i should resling them

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

I don't see a specific sustainability problem with climbing. The kit is a non issue. The problem is leisure travel and that will clean up with travel in general (or it won't). There's no point in taking a hair shirt approach.

Jk

In reply to Luke90:

I think your point is valid except the bit about the Right Wing. We live in a world, certainly in the west where individual free choice is the Religion, and the Liberal Left are just as on board. It was notable during the Pandemic how many climbers I knew to be progressive liberals (whatever that is) pushed back against the temerity of the government imposing lock downs. Basically IMHO, they just are not prepared to be told what to do. They may articulate why they are doing precisely what they want to do, and why they will accept no responsibility, in a more acceptable way, but the end result is the same.

 

In reply to Godwin:

It sounds like you're claiming that people in "the West" are fundamentally opposed to being told what to do, regardless of political leaning or validity of reason for any restriction. If that's the case, I strongly disagree.

Most people during the pandemic were perfectly fine with interruptions to their normal way of life as long as they were satisfied that such impositions were justified and reasonable.

Which is where I suspect the issue becomes more acute. Freedom of choice is a privilege we can exercise whenever it won't substantively damage others or society as a whole. In times of pandemic, or more commonly in matters of social responsibility, freedom of choice necessarily must be made having given due respect to wider societal issues as well as to personal selfish preference. The extent to which this is done I suspect is where your classification of the "right wing" and the "liberal left" significantly differ.

In reply to Godwin:

Covid was a seismic event that caused all kinds of new divides, new alliances and new conspiracy theories. I think opinions on climate change are still, on the whole, more conventionally aligned with a classic political spectrum. Yes, there are countless exceptions and people from all over the spectrum will get grumpy if/when particularly severe restrictions are forced on them personally (like during Covid). But if the UN published some broad stroke guidance tomorrow for how it thought individuals should restrict their behaviour to fight climate change, I'm confident the loudest voices decrying it and misrepresenting it as a move towards oppression from a sinister world government would be the libertarian right.

You're not wrong that almost everyone in the West, from all over the political spectrum, has got used to an unsustainable way of living and will be uncomfortable with giving any of that up. But let's not lose sight of the fact that outright denial of the science, or denial of the moral imperative to do anything about it, is still overwhelmingly coming from very specific areas of the political map.

In reply to Luke90:

The problem is we have no right to deny the rest of the world a chance to enjoy the same standard of living. The challenge is enabling at least 3 continents to leap over the polluting tech we've evolved through over the last 100 years and arrive in the world of 2030 tech immediately. If not they'll be burning their coal and diesel just like we did or still do. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

For sure. I'm acknowledging it, not endorsing it.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Didn’t say there was?

In reply to ExiledScot:

The Utopia of (non-polluting) 2030 tech is not going to happen. The time-frame is totally unrealistic and the new tech will not be non-polluting. Meanwhile the problem of maintaining energy security will become more and more acute. Unless mankind achieves an unprecedented level of international cooperation by about 2040-50, things are likely to become very nasty.

In reply to John Stainforth:

New tech isn't anywhere near as polluting and most of it isn't that new, we're just a decade behind because no party ever invests for the future.

The uk isn't energy secure, it imports around 10% of electricity, masses of gas etc.. again because it's made no investment. Plenty other countries have, especially after ukraine, the uk has done precious little in the last 18 months. We are lucky our neighbours over produce electricity. 

In reply to Luke90:

Yes I can agree with this. But what you call denial, I would term a lack of trust in the people that tell us what to do. Take the push to get us into Diesel Cars, because that was better for us, then all of a sudden it was not, or the car companies fiddling the emissions. You call it denial which almost gives it a religious tone, but I can quite understand why people due to life experience may not believe everything "government" tells them, I certainly do not. Therefore if you do not trust the Science, there is no logical reason for them to accept a moral imperative

However I do believe anthropogenic climate change is a fact, and that it presents if not an existential threat, a threat to huge swathes of the global population, and that this threat falls far more on poorer people, who have done little or nothing to contribute to it.

What perplexes me though, is that when I look around at the people I have come to know via climbing and the world it has introduced me to, many of them are very well resourced, and espouse views from the opposite end of the political map. Yet they refuse to make  any personal sacrifice for the climate, instead preferring to point the finger at Billionaires, China and constantly travel, even though they have "believed" in these Green Issues for many years longer than me, and they refuse to take any real personal action to fulfil the moral imperative.

In reply to Godwin:

Diesels are better in pure economic terms and carbon emissions, it has more energy potential than petrol. What wasn't factored in was particle emissions and damage to health in cities. If you want to reduce your carbon footprint then it's better, but you'll be helping kill others through particle damage etc.. science evolves as we learn. The diesel decisions were based on data likely collected nearly 25-30 years ago, we live and learn. EVs will evolve over time too. The same has happened with all transport be it the horse and cart, Stephensons rocket and so on. 

In reply to Godwin:

The IPCC is a collection of scientists, not a policy making body. Their advice is clear: reduce CO2 emissions - it's up to governments to implement this, and use the data the IPCC reports synthesise to inform their decisions.

Personal choice with wide ranging public effects is not the way to go - there needs to be society level legislation. For example: the smoking ban, or speed limits.

It's not meant for the layperson - it's a science synthesis report. The full report isn't even meant for politicians - that's the summary for policymakers, which is still a 1-2 hour read. 

No, the IPCC is doing the role they are meant to fulfil. It's not their fault people misunderstand it.

In reply to Luke90:

Sound pretty good to me, lets go

In reply to ExiledScot:

Absolutely, the scientific method, and it is possible that in a few years the IPCC or whoever will turn around and say, whoops got that wrong, it was the Volcanoes or undersea thermal vents or microbes farting, nothing to do with Humans at all. Sorry everyone has spent gazillions and totally changed society, but hey we have this new theory, and the current scientific evidence is...............

You say EVs will evolve over time, and I am sure they will, but they are still stuff, and Humans, or at least Wealthy Humans, that is everyone in the UK, uses too much stuff, and it is unsustainable. 
I recently cycled past Europort in Rotterdam and the amount of stuff being moved around is thought provoking, and stand on a Motorway Bridge and watch the streams of traffic, every vehicle a small environmental disaster.

But hey ho, we are just a meaningless chemical experiment spinning through the void, and in 10,000 years it could be that the only trace of humanity will be a few fuel boxes containing nuclear waste that is just about safe. So lets not get too excited

In reply to Godwin:

That's nonsensical. You either accept that scientific knowledge evolves over time and use the best it has to offer (along with confidence levels) to make decisions, or you refute science altogether. You can't pick and choose simply based on personal or political preference.

In reply to john arran:

I think people do exactly this.

In reply to john arran:

I'm pretty sure you and Derek are agreeing with eachother.

In reply to Godwin:

You're viewing our development of transportation or it's fuel source over a very tight timeline.

We've evolved over a million plus years, fire was likely a disaster to start with: suffocating in caves, burning possessions and people, we have barely got control of it now. But history just says man discovered how to start fire. History in several millenia will likely say we made mechanical transport which for the first 200 years was inefficient and polluting. Evolution and science isn't linear, it's endless peaks and troughs, learning as we go.

Yeah we are all just a bunch of meaningless particles in a universe/s, but that doesn't mean we should knowingly cause harm to each other through our actions, we should at least try to solve these problems. 

Busy ports, yes, we consume far too much and much of it isn't actually making us any happier either. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Several Millenia, a curiously vague term but, 2 to 7 thousand years, I wonder who will be writing that History, or what species?

I suspect they will wonder why such an apparently intelligent species kept sawing at the branch they where sitting on.

An analogy I use is Slavery. If I was taken back in a time machine three hundred years, no matter what the rest of society was doing, I would not own a Slave. I wonder how people, possibly alive now and will still be alive in 2110 will look at us. Will they ask, you knew it was wrong, why did you not stop.

In reply to john arran:

The problem is that whilst the average person has to spend to align their lifestyle with the current theories and then spend again to match a new theory the scientists seem to suffer no consequences when they decide that their theories are wrong.  They just carry on earning more than the rest of us, living lives that most can only dream of and consuming at levels that do more damage than most.

If our politicians make the wrong decisions based on the science we can hold them to account, we don't have that option with scientists.

In reply to Godwin: 

...human nature, our species will survive climate change, we'll be displaced, fight, suffer, die, but overall the species will still exist despite it. Genetic drivers top trump everything, there are very intelligent people in prison, and people with nothing who will suffer themselves whilst helping others, why? Because even knowing the consequences it's extemely hard to over come genetically driven instinct. 

In reply to John Stainforth:

Seems to me we're moving far more toward locally sourced energy (specifically) than we have had for years. Sure, the mineral resources and supply chains for the energy (and related chemical) industry remain well outside our control but it has been thus since we lost our empire.

2030 isn't a line in the sand beyond which we will be 'clean' but a much cleaner future is now coming well within our reach. Yet still, many knotty problems will remain to be solved.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

You think of the old mill sites between Lanarkshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire that could support a hydro plant of some type, must be hundreds if not over a thousand of them. That's local energy! 

In reply to Godwin:

This gets misrepresented, sometimes willfully, sometimes unintentionally by people who've had 'both sides of the argument' from people willfully misrepresenting it. The reality isn't that the government was wrong to push diesel, it's that both its priority and the available technology has changed, with it the 'correct' solution.

The drive to diesel was about reducing carbon emissions. Diesels at the time delivered much better thermal efficiency, they burned significantly less fuel on a like for like basis than equivalent petrol vehicles.

Since then the efficiency of petrol vehicles has improved markedly, bringing them well up into contention with diesels. And electric vehicles have gone mainstream.

That parity has allowed different questions to be asked, different issues to be prioritised like NOX and particulate pollution. Here diesels do less well, currently. This shifting focus is no bad thing but it doesn't mean the initial drive toward diesel in order to control CO2 from the roads was wrong, it was just a choice of its time. It also doesn't automatically mean diesels will remain in the doghouse. As we saw with petrol engines, they were engineered back into contention.

I suspect in reality, both fuels will lose to battery electric and we are probably just about at the zenith of internal combustion development.

Ask them why.

jk

In reply to ExiledScot:

Interesting, there's a modern hydro screw on the river Wear at Durham. Is it gimmick? Whenever I see it I think well if this produces economic electricity why not install several more, there's plenty of room.

In reply to ExiledScot:

It is but run of the river generators have modest outputs coupled with relatively high costs and potential for significant impact. Probably better for now to funnel that development money into wind, solar or storage. I'd say the exception to that being where you create something of significant local value, an attraction or a hub around which other industries and jobs can be developed in run-down areas.

jk

In reply to Pedro50:

No gimmick, hydro off Durham's weirs, on the Wear, has an interesting history.

http://beamishtransportonline.co.uk/2014/05/durhams-icy-past/

In reply to timjones:

As a research scientist, I can confirm that we do not in fact earn that much money - I have a PhD and there are a vast number of my undergraduate cohort in different fields that out earn me. If you know of any of these high paying environmental science jobs, please send them my way. 

pray tell me how, the current system isn't really doing anything

In reply to jkarran:

I don't doubt that we (here meaning the UK) are becoming somewhat "cleaner" than hitherto, but we are acheiving this partly by offshoring the manufacture of the goods we buy. Are we going to bring our manufacturing back from China, who are building two new 1 GW coal power plants per week and polluting on our behalf? Will we have enough "renewable" power for that? These are just a few of the "many knotty problems [that] remain to be solved"!

In reply to John Stainforth:

Firstly, I was specific about onshoring (and consequently cleaning) our energy production/harvest, my point was in relation to yours regarding energy security.

Secondly, China's energy situation is far less black and white than "China, who are building two new 1 GW coal power plants per week and polluting on our behalf" makes it sound. That is currently being significantly outpaced by their renewable installation and their total installed renewables capacity already dwarfs anyone else's. On top of that, they are pretty much the global supplier of PV.

If it was easy we'd have dealt with it already. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding your tone it feels like you're allowing good to be the enemy of perfect. Perfect isn't achievable. Much much better has to be.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

I am all for us trying all avenues, but our plans and deadlines have to be realistic and hopefully not too hypocritical. What we really have to go for are the big ticket items that have some hope or working at the scale required, in the time frame required. Fossil fuels are likely to peak sometime ca. 2040 (as a result of both supply and demand), so there is not much time. 

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

The amount of negative votes you got is a reflection how little climbers care to confront this reality, because the truth is that the answer is climbing is not very sustainable, or rather more accurately, that to make climbing more sustainable climbers would have to make considerable sacrificies which they don't like. There are carbon calculator for pretty much everything nowadays (some proprietary so unfortunately not publicly available) so you could be very accurate about our footprint. If the data was available, it would be interesting to see where the biggest gain could be made. My feeling would that the biggest emissions would be transport (i.e. garments from China) rather than manufacturing (i.e. cams made in Wales). That's why is important companies publish their ESG reports because we can then make informed choices of who to buy from. Hardest emissions to calculate would be Scope 3's as, technically, that would include sponsored climbers' flying if they are on a company's payroll. 

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

I'd hazard a guess that consumption of 'stuff' (gear, boulder mats, shoes) in climbing is probably a massive runner up to the amount of carbon expended by climbers flying to their favourite climbing destinations, and, to a lesser degree the amount of travel that is required to climb (both outside and inside) domestically within the UK.

I can count on one hand the amount of times I've been on a plane in the last 10 years, but I'll happily admit that is down to financial reasons (we've have had two kids in that time and just cant afford to fly much) rather than a specific desire to limit CO2 emissions. I would have probably flown more for climbing trips had I the time and money to do so. But I have done a fair amount of driving to climb at various UK destinations in that time, and in fact never done any climbing via public transport, as its so inefficient and expensive.    

I know a few high profile climbers (Dave Mac being one) have said they basically wont be flying to climbing destinations for climate change reasons, but the majority of pro/high profile climbers I follow on social media seems to happily spend their life jetting to various locations, and clearly their CO2 contribution will be way higher than the 'average' citizen. 

So yeah, I agree with you there, the climbing community at large is pretty shit at addressing this, just like the rest of society.

But if you want to fix it, you have to sort out domestic public transport so its actually viable and cost effective to use, which is not an easy task. 

And the elephant in the room is air travel. There isn't really much viable alternative, its really just a case of not doing it (offsetting to me always seems to be a massive con) or reducing it as much as possible.    

I suspect reductions in CO2 can be found in manufacturing of most bits of gear, but will take time to develop low CO2 alternatives, and is probably more fiddling around the edges. 

The above is all bollocks anyway, only concerted efforts by governments to decarbonise the whole economy and sort out systemic issues to every ones lifestyles will really help. 

In reply to Ramon Marin:

While on the mqnufactoring vs freight thing, transport of good from China to your local shop is indeed a good chunk… it is not that big. Simply living here in Europe produced generally a lot more greenhouse gas emissions (so electricity, heating, local travel etc.). Of course those figures were based on averages etc… so I would actually venture to guess that and average climber consumes a lot less instant fashion than your average city dweller. But then again the city dweller might not produce emissions from weekly/daily climbing sessions on your car/van… in fact, ”average” city dweller does not even own a car…

In reply to HeMa:

I remembered that Patagucci had something about this…

https://eu.patagonia.com/fi/en/climate-goals/
 

and based on this, only 4% of emissions are from freight. And ~80% from materialchain and manufacture… so while global freight is indeed something to look at, even for stuff that Patagonia produces… the front-end What we should be looking at…

In reply to ianstevens:

As a research scietist are you in a role where you advise politicians and bureaucrats in a way that has a real impact on our daily lives. It is those roles that should be held to account.

I suspect that we are likely to see significant changes at the next election and at least we have the option to vote.

In reply to timjones:

What does "held to account" look like here?

In reply to MG:

Perhaps scientists could openly publish the results of their research online and in journals so that other scientists and laypersons could review and evalutate it?

In reply to timjones:

I don’t advise any politicians. I have literally zero influence or policymaking power in any way. I do research which politicians may or may not choose to read and inform themselves. I’m held accountable by the rest of the scientific community, and the fact that if I do sub-par work I won’t get another job when my current fixed-term one ends. I’m arguably much more accountable than a politician, as my work is judged by people who actually have a clue what they’re on about, not the general public who don’t have 20+ years of full time study and research behind them.

Every UK election in my adult life bar one, I have been in safe seats, generally for the party I don’t want. Tell me what power people have in that case? If we had true PR of believe you, but only once has my vote actually counted in a UK election.

In reply to TechnoJim:

Don’t forget we actually also *pay* to do this 

(by we I mean our research grants, but nonetheless a publisher is doing next to no work and taking a huge cut)

In reply to MG:

Under Italian Law, where apparently some has to be responsible, potentially jail, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/oct/22/scientists-convicted-mansla....

My first reaction its a bit harsh, but on the other hand when one comes across scientists presenting information as supporting for example the continued use of Fossil Fuels, Unhealthy Foods or Cigarettes, and then it turns out they have been funded be the industries that produce them, possibly not.

In reply to ianstevens:

More correctly: we taxpayers collectively pay for that.

(The work you're doing will be entirely funded by research councils, won't it?)

In reply to Godwin:

In the end they weren't

https://www.science.org/content/article/italy-s-supreme-court-clears-l-aqui...

But a ridiculous case, surely.  Do we really want to convict people for *not* predicting earthquakes? Scientist aren't all-seeing.

I agree at the very least funding sources should be transparent.

In reply to HeMa:

In broad terms a kilo of road fuel is a kilo of plastic clothing in carbon terms. A single tank of fuel (weekend jolly) probably emits more carbon than my clothing has in the past decade. The gear is pretty much a non issue.

Jk

In reply to jkarran:

Petrol is about 85% carbon. 

Burning one litre of fuel converts that carbon to CO2.

That one litre of fuel produces about 3Kg of CO2 when used. 

I would guess that getting that litre into your tank costs another 1Kg or so of CO2.

Certainly looks like transport is the big one.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Which I said. “We” being our research grants. And as a taxpayer, partially me personally of course. But again, the thing worth noting here: most of this tax money goes straight into private publishing corporations. 
 

I’m also employed on a grant paid for by the EU… so actually you aren’t paying any of it  

In reply to MG:

The judiciary investigated it and went through a process, and at the end, in this case, the Scientists were found not guilty, but the potential of punishment is there.

Whereas in the UK, several years later an inquiry will be held, the people responsible will have move on or retired, the inquiry will go on for a long time, by the end of which the happenings are so remote in time, that really other than possibly a few bereaved families, no one cares anymore, and the enquiry will make some recommendations, that may or may not have any impact. Or in brief, we kick the can down the road.

Possibly it has merit, it seems to try and find if someone is responsible, and if they are, hold them to account, and it appears to have worked in the Italian case. Just had a look at the Costa Concordia case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Concordia_disaster , and the Capitain is still in Jail. 

I was hoping to discover that this system had put Berlusconi in prison, and if we had this system both Blair and Johnson could both end up in Jail, hopefully both in the same cell. I would have then taken a thread starting with a bouldering matt, and ending with those two in prison, but sadly, it was not to be, damn!!!! But it was a nice dream whilst it lasted.

In reply to Godwin:

For what?  Failing to predict something they never claimed to be able to predict? 

The Italian legal system seems a bit odd so I don't know what happened in this case really.  In the UK, professional services are generally required to be competently delivered to a level that is typical for the profession.  I'd imagine for a scientist that means doing diligent work and making justifiable predictions based on that, not being able to predict the unpredictable.

In reply to Godwin:

The potential of punishment is there for most professional jobs if you act negligently or unethically:

Accountants fiddling the books.

Climbing instructors/ guides making mistakes that cause clients to die (as per the court case involving Smiler).

Engineers if they are in the authorship/ approval chain for a document detailing a design decision that gets someone injured or killed. It's worth noting that some tasks are inherently dangerous and that a death or injury may occur due to a failure in operational controls, however engineers do their best to avoid using operational controls to keep people safe and quite rightly transfer as much responsibility for product safety onto themselves and their design documentation.

Teachers/ Counsellors etc if they don't report someone disclosing stuff from the mandatory reporting list.

Other professions will have similar scenarios in which you can have a day in court with a fine or prison sentence following it. 

The inquiries process in the UK seems too slow to me. The Grenfell inquiry is still ongoing for instance. If something requires a full inquiry the people undertaking the inquiry should have the power to get the evidence they need, damage and inconvenience to slow responding businesses be damned.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I am a bit troubled in this time by the sheer number of dogs you see around, even being carried in dog baby carriers, dog pushchairs and prams in ever increasing numbers.

Just back from a low carbon holiday camping in Norfolk, walked to the beach and saw a number of dogs on the dog-free beaches, many more on the doggy beaches of course.  Practically every day there were severaol occasions when I had my space invaded by being touched, showered on by wet dogs, being sniffed or brushed against - owners were far more polite in previous years.  Being touched by someone's dog is on a par with the owner touching you - no thanks.  I wonder how many dog owners who let their dogs freely approach people who do not want this and do not consent have joined in the protests about "the world cup kiss"?  Seems there are doggy double standards.

These dogs must be a large extra carbon cost plus producing the doggy food, icecreams, prams and pushchairs etc.  Admission:  I must admit to contributing to carbon by feeding the birds in the garden but on a "polite request basis" rather than just putting food out all the time.

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

Reading replies to these topics is watching the Kübler-Ross Change Curve play out 

Denial

Anger

Bargaining 

Depression

Acceptance

Precious threads have been quite angry, this is more bargaining - “If I go vegan/sell the car/get solar panels etc I can carry on as I am”

I feel that much of the population are hitting depression on a global scale, certainly in the UK  

Our lives have to change. In some countries it will change dramatically. Billions are dependant on mountain glaciers for drinking water.

I’ve no doubt that the travel associated with my climbing and the environmental impact of all the petrochemical products is not helpful but I’m still climbing. In the meantime I’m bargaining that my solar panels and government/international innovation will ease the change 😬  

Acceptance will come, but I know there’s a stage to come before that

In reply to wercat:

You've reminded me, the hospital stats for this year should be out soon so I can get my annual dogs/fireworks which is worse for the world thread ready to drop. Spoiler: it's dogs. But not just because they're an environmental disaster.

In reply to Annabel Tall:

So here we are, and J Karran asked me to ask my friends this question. Why are you still Climbing which lets face it is travelling, when you totally accept people will suffer?

I have come to the conclusion that the reason I do, is despite much virtue signalling, frankly I enjoy travel more than I care about some poor person Tuvalu being up to their neck in water. Not nice, but maybe its honest.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Hi Rob, I’ve been a university research prof. for a long time on top of other duties. Research funding comes from a pretty broad portfolio of funders. I’ve had a reasonable number of RC grants over the last 20 years say, but the bulk has come directly from Industry, the EU, and more latterly charities who fund medical technology research. The bulk of RC funding goes to the Russell Group, and a reasonably small subset of researchers in the RG get funded, so taxpayers often aren’t paying for research.

For the last 10 years I ran a uni research institute which paid its own way with funding almost entirely from industry and EU. I had a bottom line in the accounts to manage which was enforced by the Director of Finance.

In reply to Stuart Hutchinson:

Some interesting replies.

Thinking about it travel is evidently the big one, not just for climbing but any outdoor activity.

Gear for the most part tends to last years (though obviously climbing rope has a shelf life) I wouldn't know the carbon footprint of producing it compared to other things like phones or computers.

As for the travel aspect there three options as I see 1) give up travelling and don't go further than time and pedalling/walking distance allow 2) public transport (woefully inadequate in most places) 3) find a better way of travelling (Electric cars, improved solar technology etc.)

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

It is the major greenhouse emission source, globally... well, at least in developed countries. And it is primarily the personal travel, not freight of goods.

I would say, that even fossil based (so plastic components) aren't a big contributor. Consumer electronics are a lot more worse... especially with new mobiles poppin' every year and people hoarding to get the newest and greatest, without even thinkin' that their current iPhone or what ever is still completely fine.

Indeed, so cutting on travels is one the the easiest ways to limit ones footprint... But it's not as clear cut as you put it... especially option 3 is in the murky waters. Ditching your working petrol driven car and buying a new fancy electric one, can actually cause a larger footprint than simply driving on the old petrol car... it depends on the amounts you drive, where is the electricity coming form and so on...

In sort, for climbers, we should assess our travel needs, and if needed, use the most environmentally sustainable option. So do I need to travel is the first question one needs to ask. If I do, how do a minimize the impact.

That being said, with the exception of travel, climbers are actually reasonably sustainable... but that I mean that we try to live close to good climbing (so less travel)... we don't spend our money in non-sense instant fashion clothes (instead we buy them fancy, but quite robust Organic Cotton Hugh-a-tree Patagucci troos... and continue to use 'em until you look like a complete hobo)... And even our travel (longer trips) is often reasonably low footprint... for the simple fact, that we are strapped for cash, so we plan how to make to most of it... after all, 80% of our household income goes to chalk, cams and new shoes... 5% for food an the remaining 15% to  facilitate using said gear (so travel costs).




Btw. one option a a climber to reduce your footprint, is to look at your housing... so make sure that the heating/cooling is as efficient as possible and also as low carbon footprint as possible... same goes for your electricity, try to go for low emission options...


So in reality, if you really are concerned about your ecological footprint, use variety of those calculators that are available to assess your current one... then see, where you can cut it. The goal and need is to lower your footprint, but how to achieve it up to you... Continue driven every night and weekend for climbing trips... but instead move to an old stone-hut that is heated/cooled with a ground heat pump, that get's all the electricity from solarpanels (enough for heating/cooling, but all other electricity needs... and thensome), grow all organic food in your backyard and go vegan...

You will most likely end up having a vastly smaller footprint than a lad who sells his 3 year old Skoda Octavia estate, get's and ID5 instead... builds a new concreate pour & element house and takes two holidays a year (for leasure or for climbing... no matter, but travel is by plane). Plus occational weekend trips for climbing more locally.

In reply to TechnoJim:

I thought that almost by definition, a layperson is incapable of understanding and reviewing scientific publications ?

In reply to GrahamD:

Perhaps that was the wrong choice of words. I'm not a scientist, but I can still follow along with the abstract of a paper or a journal article, for example. 

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

look forward to it!

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I must admit that the fact that cycling can start from home without the need to travel as in hillwalking sometimes makes it seem quite attractive to me.

Of course it has an emissions footprint every time I have to fit replacement parts

In reply to TechnoJim:

"follow along with the abstract" is not the same as "review and evaluate it".

In reply to Marek:

You're right. I'm clouding my essential point with my poor use of language and crap examples, my essential point being that scientists openly publish their work for anyone to look at.