Something about politics being the art of the possible comes to mind. It’s not about chestnuts, it’s about realism. I’d be curious how many here who advocate responsible energy usage, turn off their Naim amps when not in use to save power
At the risk of sounding defeatist, until there is at least the possibility of a real shift towards sustainable lifestyle and population levels globally, I’m not going to faff around with tiny token gestures like turning off the odd appliance here and there. Besides, when you live 1000’ above sea level on a N facing hillside in Wales, there is no such thing as wasted heat, so mine are staying on.
I can assure you 101% that it was very lighthearted. The guy in question is into all things planetary & then some. Republicans can hug trees & also have aversions to orange anal glands.
I leave mine on.
The domestic heating system consequently uses far less power to heat the house.
My staircase lobby is the warmest room in the house - until I light a fire.
Sustainable living is an ideal that few will realistically attain … but I am for taking care of the environment and leaving as small a foot print behind me.
I’m with Chris SU on this.
I am not objecting to paying extra for solar panel electricity, even though we could eat wheat but not those panels. And i’m not not protesting about the current cost of wind power, despite the visual rape of our countryside.
But tinkering with pathetic little dubious savings when China is burning the equivalent of the entire ex-Durham coal field every other day…it’s a bit like the proverbial pi**ing in the wind !
Yes, but the Chinese are sitting over there wondering why they shouldn’t burn cheap coal to get rich when the UK and US did the same when they were developing?
The point is, everyone agrees someone else should sacrifice more and pollute less, and everyone has an excuse why it shouldn’t be them. Hence all the liberals driving around in minivans, Al Gore flying private jets to give lectures on the environment, households refrigerated in the summer and overheated in the winter, everyone eating imported foods out of local season, drinking bottled water, and yes… leaving their power hungry appliances on 24/7 because they sound slightly nicer that way.
Look, I leave my Naim on all the time too. I’m just saying I don’t expect the Chinese to make a single sacrifice anymore than me, you, and all our hand-wringing neighbors and forum-friends will. Trying to be a realist.
That’s all very well, but just as the West has started to grapple with the issue, the Chinese have come along and decided they want in on industrialisation, consumerism, and all the stuff that we now accept can’t be sustained. So have the Indians, the Brazilians, and anyone else who can, by either industrialisation, or mass migration to an already consumerised society, managed to do so. Letting them have their splurge before we start to address the issues isn’t going to work.
And yet, there appears to be a different point of view.
Yep, we all have an excuse.
And when the big governments take physical action together, I will play my part. I already do, without complaint as I pointed out above. I don’t accept that what the big governments have SAID they will do will be adequate. And they are doing only a pathetic fraction of what they said they would do.
As I said above, ingenuity and population reduction are the two keys.
But just because the sea level is rising I a’int gonna stop pi**ing in the vain hope that it might help. We need to be realistic.
We’re not “letting them” Chris, they’ll do what they damned well please, and what they please looks a lot like what we’re doing. Pollution per capita is higher in the UK and US than in China I believe…
Yeah, we can’t even get our governments (US or UK) to take physical action by themselves (e.g. secure a border and negotiate brexit respectively). I’m not holding my breath for them to do it together. Avoiding climate change involves sacrifices those governments won’t make, and a population decrease I would never wish for (since it has obvious implications…).
That’s the key I think: ingenuity. Or what I referred to as adaptation in an earlier post.
Perhaps you could elaborate, (and I might become a little wiser…there is always a possibility, slight, I know, but nevertheless, possible !)).
The implication being that billions of people have to die, for the population to decrease in the timeframe required to avoid all the terrible things supposedly coming our way as a result of climate change. I don’t want people to die, and I find it scares the heck out of me when people seem to casually wish for it.
I made it clear earlier in this thread, that I was not suggesting any (unnatural) deaths. Simply a reduction in births.
I also noted that any gov that could achieve this, could achieve anything. Ie it’s virtually impossible to implement. At present.
Oh, I know you did, others didn’t. That part was directed at other folks Don, not you.
Thank you, no probs.
Yes, per capita harm is worse here, but the Chinese are hell bent on catching up and overtaking us. It matters not a jot whether we are letting them, helping them, or trying to stop them, the point is that we’re all in it together, and we all need to do something about it - and none of us are, in any meaningful way.
I think what most right-thinking people hope for is that we reduce population to a sustainable level before nature does it for us, thus preventing billions of people from dying prematurely and probably in most unpleasant circumstances by taking control of matters for ourselves.
We definitely agree on this.
But look at the timeline involved. Reducing it voluntarily, even if that were possible, would take 50+ years. The climate models, if they’re any good, say we’ve got maybe 30 before irreversible change. There’s just not enough time.
Well that was a few minutes of my life I’ll never get back. What idiotic pseudo-science.