The seven deadly things we’re doing to trash the planet (and human life with it)

Widdershins

The ozone layer is.. sort of.. repairing itself!

Capt'n Midnight

http://asset-6.soupcdn.com/asset/16172/6418_62f6.jpeg

Dr Crayfish

More good news

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/18/2016-hottest-year-ever-recorded-and-scientists-say-human-activity-to-blame

It's quite mild in Dublin this winter too, but I don't even know if that's normal or if it used to be colder.

Really, instead of recycling, which I believe is almost pointless, as we're using probably 100 times as much stuff as we're recycling - should we not just try and create less stuff, packaging, junk etc? It will never happen as a slower economy is not what politicians want.

Why do both parents in a family need to work now? Are we happier because of it? Do we really need more stuff than we used to have?

ScumLord

Widdershins wrote: »

The ozone layer is.. sort of.. repairing itself!

Good, stopping the use of CFCs worked then.

Widdershins

So what have you all done, what changes have you made or would like to make to help the environment?

I see reusable items like coffee cups are on Wildgreen's link. I have To-Go containers for buying food from the counters without any plastic. Everything goes straight into the container, and I bring my steel flask everywhere so I'm ready if I need to buy coffee.

I make all of my own laundry products and I buy the wood, silicone, stainless steel or bamboo versions of anything and everything, instead of plastic.

Dr Crayfish

I should stop reading the Guardian because it's scaring the hell out of me when I read articles like this

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/31/bay-bengal-depleted-fish-stocks-pollution-climate-change-migration

Well worth a read. The Bay of Bengal is a dead zone, 2 billion people living there have absolutely destroyed the sea and seabed. I can't imagine what the refugee crisis will be like in 50 years, if we think it's bad now. Tough decisions need to be made by world leaders, and our way of life needs to change.

I started reading 1984 again the other day, Orwell's vision of the future couldn't have been closer to the truth...

Last night to the flicks. All war films. One very good one of a ship full of refugees being bombed somewhere in the Mediterranean. Audience much amused by shots of a great huge fat man trying to swim away with a helicopter after him, first you saw him wallowing along in the water like a porpoise, then you saw him through the helicopters gunsights, then he was full of holes and the sea round him turned pink and he sank as suddenly as though the holes had let in the water, audience shouting with laughter when he sank. then you saw a lifeboat full of children with a helicopter hovering over it. there was a middle-aged woman might have been a jewess sitting up in the bow with a little boy about three years old in her arms. little boy screaming with fright and hiding his head between her breasts as if he was trying to burrow right into her and the woman putting her arms round him and comforting him although she was blue with fright herself, all the time covering him up as much as possible as if she thought her arms could keep the bullets off him. then the helicopter planted a 20 kilo bomb in among them terrific flash and the boat went all to matchwood. then there was a wonderful shot of a child's arm going up up up right up into the air a helicopter with a camera in its nose must have followed it up and there was a lot of applause from the party seats but a woman down in the prole part of the house suddenly started kicking up a fuss and shouting they didnt oughter of showed it not in front of kids they didnt it aint right not in front of kids it aint until the police turned her turned her out i dont suppose anything happened to her nobody cares what the proles say typical prole reaction

Day Lewin

Speaking of Orwell - it feels now like Animal Farm has actually happened. The pigs are in the Farmer's chair. #Trumpington

maryishere

World population has increased / is increasing far too much.
It is estimated that the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012. The United Nations, however, estimated that the world population reached seven billion in October 2011. According to current projections, the global population will reach eight billion by 2024, and will likely reach around nine billion by 2037. It is not sustainable.

And yet the head of the Catholic church does not allow condoms or contraception.

Widdershins

maryishere wrote: »

World population has increased / is increasing far too much.
It is estimated that the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012. The United Nations, however, estimated that the world population reached seven billion in October 2011. According to current projections, the global population will reach eight billion by 2024, and will likely reach around nine billion by 2037. It is not sustainable.

And yet the head of the Catholic church does not allow condoms or contraception.

How heavily do Catholics feature in the statistics?

Dr Crayfish

Widdershins wrote: »

How heavily do Catholics feature in the statistics?

I'd say not that much. If you want to point the blame at an organisation maybe look at the WHO. Infant mortality and disease used to keep populations in 3rd world countries in check. WHO immunisations allowed populations to explode, without having a sophisticated enough infrastructure or government to deal with it.

Widdershins

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I'd say not that much. If you want to point the blame at an organisation maybe look at the WHO. Infant mortality and disease used to keep populations in 3rd world countries in check. WHO immunisations allowed populations to explode, without having a sophisticated enough infrastructure or government to deal with it.

That's a factor..along with other improvements in living standards and healthcare.

I don't think the concept of overpopulation is important enough to the average person, or even in their consciousness at all, otherwise you'd hear of people taking it into account when planning their families.

Day Lewin

Widdershins wrote: »

That's a factor..along with other improvements in living standards and healthcare.

I don't think the concept of overpopulation is important enough to the average person, or even in their consciousness at all, otherwise you'd hear of people taking it into account when planning their families.

Well, you do hear it mentioned in Europe...like, Germany and Italy not running at population replacement, their people getting older and fewer babies getting born. So, having to receive immigrants from - you guessed it - poorer, more populous countries - to do the work in the economy as well as the geriatric nursing.

The movement of peoples is a naturally recurring tide around the globe - less people here, more space to occupy - etc etc. It shouldn't worry anyone, it has always happened - that's how the earth got populated all over!

Dr Crayfish

Day Lewin wrote: »

Well, you do hear it mentioned in Europe...like, Germany and Italy not running at population replacement, their people getting older and fewer babies getting born. So, having to receive immigrants from - you guessed it - poorer, more populous countries - to do the work in the economy as well as the geriatric nursing.

The movement of peoples is a naturally recurring tide around the globe - less people here, more space to occupy - etc etc. It shouldn't worry anyone, it has always happened - that's how the earth got populated all over!

Over population/consumption shouldn't worry us? What are you smoking?

Capt'n Midnight

The future isn't 1984, it's more Brave New World. With all the apathy

lazybones32

For those worried and concerned about food and nutrition resources for an increasing population, rest easy. There are many good books out there which show how easy it is to feed people and feed them well. The problem isn't production (butter mountains and wine lakes aren't figures of speech) but management and Law.
Irish producers have to dump or give away the food stuffs that are outside of EU regulation and certain strains are favoured for conformity, rather than yield.

I'd recommend Colin Tudge's book "So shall we reap (How everyone who is liable to be born in the next ten thousand years could eat very well indeed; and why, in practice, our immediate descendants are likely to be in serious trouble) Yes, he chose that as the official title. He was the Queen's adviser on Agriculture and it is an easy and interesting read.

Widdershins

lazybones32 wrote: »

For those worried and concerned about food and nutrition resources for an increasing population, rest easy. There are many good books out there which show how easy it is to feed people and feed them well. The problem isn't production (butter mountains and wine lakes aren't figures of speech) but management and Law.
Irish producers have to dump or give away the food stuffs that are outside of EU regulation and certain strains are favoured for conformity, rather than yield.

I'd recommend Colin Tudge's book "So shall we reap (How everyone who is liable to be born in the next ten thousand years could eat very well indeed; and why, in practice, our immediate descendants are likely to be in serious trouble) Yes, he chose that as the official title. He was the Queen's adviser on Agriculture and it is an easy and interesting read.

I knew the name Tudge was familiar..the secret life of trees

Day Lewin

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Over population/consumption shouldn't worry us? What are you smoking?

To clarify - I didn't mean that over-population shouldn't worry us (it should) but that the movement of peoples around the globe should not.

Also gently pointing out that not all parts of the globe are over-populated equally - some places are sparsely inhabited, others are dropping in numbers.

maryishere

Day Lewin wrote: »

To clarify - I didn't mean that over-population shouldn't worry us (it should) but that the movement of peoples around the globe should not.

Great. Lets have 50 million in Ireland so instead of 4 or 5 million. And lets have the wives of those 50 million stay at home and have 6 children each.

There are 7 times more people on the planet than there were in the early 1800's.
There are twice as many motor vehicles on the planet now as there were people then. And look at de-forestation, climate change etc.

Widdershins

Day Lewin wrote: »

To clarify - I didn't mean that over-population shouldn't worry us (it should) but that the movement of peoples around the globe should not.

Also gently pointing out that not all parts of the globe are over-populated equally - some places are sparsely inhabited, others are dropping in numbers.

At its most basic, migration isn't worrying, but let's not be too simplistic about it..we should of course look to the past for some guidance, but keep in mind that we have to plan and envisage based on society in its current state, and the environment's current condition, and the resources we have left to us right now.

Means Of Escape

Using aeroplanes tops them all

Dr Crayfish

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Using aeroplanes tops them all

I feel very privileged that I'm able to fly a few times a year, it's a great time to be alive that we can visit other countries so easily. But unfortunately it's not without its footprint. It's definitely a guilty pleasure.

Widdershins

There were rumblings about somehow restricting flights for UK citizens a while back. I can't remember if it was on environmental grounds or something else. It may have been a tax.


I do feel like we might as well not bother when people are making unnecessary trips for holidays, and find it hypocritical. It's nice to be able to do, but 'staycationing' at least half the time you'd normally go abroad, wouldn't kill anyone.

Sadly that's the way with people. They care about the environment until they have to put themselves out and make a change themselves.

Dr Crayfish

Widdershins wrote: »

There were rumblings about somehow restricting flights for UK citizens a while back. I can't remember if it was on environmental grounds or something else. It may have been a tax.


I do feel like we might as well not bother when people are making unnecessary trips for holidays, and find it hypocritical. It's nice to be able to do, but 'staycationing' at least half the time you'd normally go abroad, wouldn't kill anyone.

Sadly that's the way with people. They care about the environment until they have to put themselves out and make a change themselves.

I hear ya. I'd be happy to fly one return flight a year if possible. I think it's good we're connected that way, but if we want to keep air travel we need to at least try and improve in other areas. You can't replace kerosene in a fuel tank with something greener but you can eat less meat and try not to consume as much stuff in general.

Widdershins

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I hear ya. I'd be happy to fly one return flight a year if possible. I think it's good we're connected that way, but if we want to keep air travel we need to at least try and improve in other areas. You can't replace kerosene in a fuel tank with something greener but you can eat less meat and try not to consume as much stuff in general.

You have to do what you enjoy to an extent, too. All work and no play, e.t.c! It's when Leonardo DiCaprio flies EVERYWHERE in a PRIVATE JET that my gears are ground. I know he makes documentaries about the plights of..people with plights and does other things but that takes the good out of his other efforts, imo.

I had a moment of confusion when I realised I'm a devil for driving for fun and I should really stop doing that because of the petrol issue. ''But I LOVE driving'' my brain stubbornly argued. I got around that a bit by cutting out the spontaneous drives for silly reasons like going to a shop for one thing. I planned ahead better. I drive a lot less but it's mostly fun drives now.

Have you seen the counter arguments against beef cattle farming? I've seen it posted on Facebook but since I'm already vegetarian, I didn't bother reading it fully, so I can't comment on its strength.

I found this article helpful when I get discouraged:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/apr/05/environmentally-friendly-green-living-ideas

Dr Crayfish

Good article Widders, sums a lot of us up.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/02/electric-cars-cheap-solar-power-halt-fossil-fuel-growth-2020

Maybe tech like the above can help in the future, there are some glimmers of hope.

Widdershins

I think the second most negative industry is the clothing industry and ''fast fashion''. Both from the manufacturing and the disposal of clothing. Also, most fabrics are made with some petroleum based materials and there's an issue with microplastics in the watersystems, from those fabrics shedding during wash cycles. Especially synthetic fleece.

I'm learning to make some of my own clothes (which is handy because I rarely find anything I like, anyway) and trying to buy more durable clothes, where possible made of natural fabric .

Capt'n Midnight

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I hear ya. I'd be happy to fly one return flight a year if possible. I think it's good we're connected that way, but if we want to keep air travel we need to at least try and improve in other areas. You can't replace kerosene in a fuel tank with something greener but you can eat less meat and try not to consume as much stuff in general.

Oddly enough over long distances flying uses less energy than other forms of transport. Long distance trains in EU/US are priced too high unless you have a travel pass.

Actually you can replace kerosene in a fuel tank. Jet aircraft will run on just about any flammable fluid. The problems are setting up a global infrastructure to support such a fluid and getting enough of it. The US Air Force did a lot of work on Liquid Hydrogen in the past. (and boran based fuels) But hydrocarbons are just so much easier to manage. Bio-fuels work, but they require a lot of fossil fuel input so are really green washing. The Germans even tried coal-dust during the war. It's not low carbon though.

From a green point of view each conversion looses energy, so it's a complete waste using fossil fuel to produce a so called "green alternative".


Insulating premises and hot water storage would save more energy than air transport uses or nuclear provides. IT uses about the same but more can be done there. Except of course for bitcoins which are a disaster for the environment.

Virtual Reality and telecommuting are green options. Unless you heat your home while you work there , that depends on how much energy would have been used on the commute.

Capt'n Midnight

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm learning to make some of my own clothes (which is handy because I rarely find anything I like, anyway) and trying to buy more durable clothes, where possible made of natural fabric .

Back in the 1930's they used to print patterns on sacks of flour.
https://www.littlethings.com/flour-sack-dresses/

Dr Crayfish

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

IT uses about the same but more can be done there. Except of course for bitcoins which are a disaster for the environment.

Virtual Reality and telecommuting are green options. Unless you heat your home while you work there , that depends on how much energy would have been used on the commute.

Hi. What do you mean by the bolded part?
VR, I never thought of that. So you could be sat in your office with your colleagues while you're actually at home!

Regarding heating, I live alone and don't use the heat much. This evening for example. I'm on the couch now with a blanket on me. I'm way too hot. Haven't had the heating on today. I really don't think we need to use as much energy for heating as we think we do, Ireland isn't that cold at all.

Capt'n Midnight

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Hi. What do you mean by the bolded part?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfa2ecb5lZw

:P

Widdershins

Hope it's ok to bump this thread a bit. I wanted to let people know that, after some discussion with campaigners, Lidl are trialling Naked Aubergines (no plastic wrapping) this week, so if you can, try to buy some because they are only being trialled so if people don't buy, they'll be back in plastic in the next few weeks.... we need to prove that we prefer naked produce and our money speaks louder than our words.

One vegetable down, only another 72 to go

Grayson

Good news.


I was thinking of this thread today. The guardian are doing a series of articles on air pollution. It makes for grim reading.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/series/the-air-we-breathe

milehip

https://youtu.be/Kxryv2XrnqM


According to this guy it'll all be totally chill by 2030 so we just need to hang on in there for another 13 years.

Dr Crayfish

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn

Another wonderfully bleak article.

How much would you be willing to change your life for the greater good? What would you give up? Air travel? Less exotic foods? Less meat?
If we don't stop living how we are, soon, the planet is doomed.

Widdershins

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn

Another wonderfully bleak article.

How much would you be willing to change your life for the greater good? What would you give up? Air travel? Less exotic foods? Less meat?
If we don't stop living how we are, soon, the planet is doomed.

I was stubborn about using a tumble dryer. It broke and made the choice for me. I'm not replacing it, so that's one bit less energy being used. I should've done it ages ago. Being more conscientious about unnecessary drives these days too.

Grayson

Widdershins wrote: »

I was stubborn about using a tumble dryer. It broke and made the choice for me. I'm not replacing it, so that's one bit less energy being used. I should've done it ages ago. Being more conscientious about unnecessary drives these days too.

Good for you. All these little things add up. We just need more people doing this stuff.

What's happening to the planet is terrifying.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Yourself isit

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn

Another wonderfully bleak article.

How much would you be willing to change your life for the greater good? What would you give up? Air travel? Less exotic foods? Less meat?
If we don't stop living how we are, soon, the planet is doomed.

They seem to have redefined extinction in that paper.

There's actually a counter view that warming is increasing species diversity.

Yourself isit

jacksie66 wrote: »

In a way you could blame car insurance companies for environmental damage in this country. Forcing people to get rid of their perfectly working older cars as they won't insure them. Absolute waste..

I think you are confusing climate change with this extinction issue.

For Europe it claims that between 1900-2015 40% of species lost 80% of their range.

This doesn't tell is of those species are endangered or not or when most of the collapse was. Probably early in the last century rather than now.

The more significant losses were in Asia.

Cina

Yourself isit wrote: »

They seem to have redefined extinction in that paper.

There's actually a counter view that warming is increasing species diversity.

A counter view that is completely wrong.

mzungu

Interesting article about what may happen before 2100 if things don't improve.

Link: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

Dr Crayfish

jacksie66 wrote: »

In a way you could blame car insurance companies for environmental damage in this country. Forcing people to get rid of their perfectly working older cars as they won't insure them. Absolute waste..

That is insane. My folks sold a 99 perfectly working Toyota a while back to a friend, his nephew can't get insured on the car as no company will take it on. It's a cartel.

Grayson

Nearly half of the 177 mammal species surveyed lost more than 80% of their distribution between 1900 and 2015

No matter how you define extinction that doesn't sound good. And the point is that these don't happen overnight but we're at the start of one right now. If we don't stop soon a lot more diversity will be lost.

Cina

Grayson wrote: »

Good for you. All these little things add up. We just need more people doing this stuff.

What's happening to the planet is terrifying.

They actually don't, sadly.

One of the biggest issues is the people who think that having a "meat free Monday" or whatever is them doing their part, this "every little helps" attitude towards climate change is one of the biggest problems, etched in the core of it including the Paris agreement (which does nowhere near enough to counter it, at all).

If we want to stop climate change destroying us by the year 2100 we can't all do these 'little things', we basically all need to stop using fossil fuels, stop eating meat and dairy products, and stop feeding the large corporations of the world through our lifestyles. We won't though because it would mean us giving up our cushy lifestyles.

Yourself isit

Cina wrote: »

A counter view that is completely wrong.

Is it? I don't know. But life is infinitely adaptable. The earth has warmed and cooled before. Life had never been extinguished.

Cina

Yourself isit wrote: »

Is it? I don't know. But life is infinitely adaptable. The earth has warmed and cooled before. Life had never been extinguished.

Life will come back to earth again, of course it will, as the earth heals itself after we c*ck things up.

Make no mistake here, we're not killing earth with climate change, we're killing ourselves. Earth will be fine.

Yourself isit

Cina wrote: »

They actually don't, sadly.

One of the biggest issues is the people who think that having a "meat free Monday" or whatever is them doing their part, this "every little helps" attitude towards climate change is one of the biggest problems, etched in the core of it including the Paris agreement (which does nowhere near enough to counter it, at all).

If we want to stop climate change destroying us by the year 2100 we can't all do these 'little things', we basically all need to stop using fossil fuels, stop eating meat and dairy products, and stop feeding the large corporations of the world through our lifestyles. We won't though because it would mean us giving up our cushy lifestyles.

Or we can try and keep our cushy lifestyles and try and make energy carbon free. Win win.

Yourself isit

Cina wrote: »

Life will come back to earth again, of course it will, as the earth heals itself after we c*ck things up.

Make no mistake here, we're not killing earth with climate change, we're killing ourselves. Earth will be fine.

That's not what you said. That's what I said.

Dr Crayfish

Yourself isit wrote: »

Or we can try and keep our cushy lifestyles and try and make energy carbon free. Win win.

We can't. We can't keep producing millions of worthless pointless disposable products, and eating foods from all over the world all the time. Just go into Lidl on a Thursday, and look at all the crap our resources are being used to produce. Ridiculous kitchen items and pointless machines. Dragon's Den kind of makes me sick because it's a bunch of idiots trying to find new ways of selling crap to consumers. And it's championed!
If we're producing worthless things and chopping down whats left of the jungles to make palm oil for our shampoo, it doesn't really matter if our power plants are using renewable energy. We just need to be content with less. And we never will be, which will lead to war, starvation... sigh!

Cina

Yourself isit wrote: »

That's not what you said. That's what I said.

err, if you say so.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Or we can try and keep our cushy lifestyles and try and make energy carbon free. Win win.

No, not win win. A largely common misconception about carbon change is that it's based mostly on 'energy' when agriculture and livestock are just as damaging. Even if we were to successfully make the energy of the world entirely carbon free by 2050 (not going to happen), we would still be f*cked due to all the emissions from cows.