Energy saving plans

[Flyfisher]

Basically, that Earth and life on it will likely survive any blip that humanity might inflict upon it, even if it turns out to be life we wouldn't recognise.

The cataclysmic 'Chixulub' asteroid that caused a massive global extinction event 65 million years ago and ended the 175 million years reign of the dinosaurs didn't manage to destroy life on earth. So, while we may be a huge danger to ourselves, I doubt we represent much of a danger to the planet as a whole. Time is a great healer and it's almost impossible for us to imagine processes that take many millions of years when our whole existence as a species is only around 0.2 million years and our current 'industrial age' is only around 0.0002 million years old.

Perhaps our legacy will just be a very thin layer of plastic and other pollutants in the geological record?

 

[plasticpigeon]

I suppose we don't really need to take responsibility for anything then, because the world will outlive and outsmart humans in the long run.

 

[Flyfisher]

It’s not really a question of taking responsibility, we are responsible for our actions whether we like it or not, but that doesn’t mean we can effectively control them, as a species, at least so far in our short history.

 

[88v8]

It’s not really a question of taking responsibility, we are responsible for our actions whether we like it or not, but that doesn’t mean we can effectively control them, as a species, at least so far in our short history.

We can, or could, but we choose not to.
Most people would vaguely like to 'save the planet' so long as it involves no inconvenience on their part, no expense.
And no thought; I wonder how many supporters of Extinction Rebellion (why couldn't they have devised a snappier title) will refrain from voting Labour because of their plan to remove the two-child benefit cap and thereby foster a further rise in population.

Indeed, we don't even address the most elementary things like building on flood plains.

The people we elect to run the country are in in many ways terminally stupid, but then we elect them so what does that say about us.

Ivor

 

[Flyfisher]

We can, or could, but we choose not to.

I’m not sure if we actively choose not to but I agree that’s the effective outcome. There seems to be a different set of beliefs and behaviours by individuals than by humanity en masse. Ask an individual if wars should be avoided and I’m pretty sure they would agree, yet humanity as a whole seems constantly at war somewhere or other. Imagine the funding and resources available for better things if vast sums were not spent on defence. Ask individuals what they think about plastic pollution of the oceans and I’m sure they’d think it is terrible, yet it continues to happen on a large scale. Again, a disconnect between individual and societal behaviours. The problems are easy to define but the solutions seem to be elusive. Reminds me of this Hugh Laurie song: https://youtu.be/Q8chs2ncYIw

 

[malcolm]

After the current set back (to do with an energy performance certificates requiring another £1k of measurements that may or may not get me more forwards) I realise I have spent far more money on getting officially recognised bodies to generate paperwork for other officially recognised bodies to ignore than I have spent on actual insulation. Those offials will all spend their money driving around in cars, heating their homes, and buying stuff on Amazon so I'm probably at a net loss on environmantal impact.

You can insulate an old building. I'm a C rating for essentially a 1920s house which is really good given so far I've only really insulated the loft and replaced the nasty '80s windows on the back of the house with nice wooden fancy environmental sash windows with E glass. The reason for the C rating is I got a really accurate SAP calculation done including 18 different constructions. The average muppet who pokes his head around the door would have said it's an old house so probably E rating.

There is a danger with legislation. I feel current legislation has been counterproductive for me, but maybe I am not the target audience. The pledges of 100 billion a year from the political people frighten me more. That's a lot of offficials driving around and buying stuff on Amazon.

 

[Flyfisher]

To get back to the point of the thread, I agree with just about every point made so far but think over population is not really the size of problem others present (I admit to having 4 children) as I have seen first hand the potential still left on this planet of ours, based on both both human and natural resources.

If every couple had 4 children that would double the global population every 20-30 years. How long would that be sustainable, even allowing for the ‘potential’ still left on the planet? I suppose it depends on how much of the planet we wish to plunder purely for our own benefit.

When I was born just over 60 years ago the global population was about 2.9bn. It is now about 7.7bn. A 2.6x increase in less than one lifetime. Imagine how different today’s environmental issues would be if we only had a global population of 2.9bn right now! How much better off we could all be, how much less our impact on the environment, on our demand for resources. And all it would take is to limit ourselves to two children per couple - hardly a draconian restriction!

 

[malcolm]

That comes across as mean Flyfisher. If someone manages to settle while still in child bearing or producing age they are really lucky and must have as many children as they possibly can.

This is a new age. You want to nest and have children. But how can you afford a nest?

For me I've wasted my life. Greg can have my allocation of 2 children.

AND https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth?language=en

 

[LadyArowana]

If someone manages to settle while still in child bearing or producing age they are really lucky and must have as many children as they possibly can.

If men had to have the babies I believe most would stop at one.

 

[paulc]

That's a lot of offficials driving around and buying stuff on Amazon.

A picture is worth a thousand words...

 

[Flyfisher]

.

 

[Flyfisher]

That comes across as mean Flyfisher. If someone manages to settle while still in child bearing or producing age they are really lucky and must have as many children as they possibly can.

I don’t understand why they “must have as many children as they possibly can”. Surely two is perfectly reasonable? Mean or not, the numbers don’t lie. Btw, I’m not advocating an enforced limit, just hoping that the current focus on ‘sustainability’ starts to include global population as a priority. I’m not optimistic though.

This is a new age. You want to nest and have children. But how can you afford a nest?

Yes, this is a new age - an age in which our numbers are now threatening the very environment that we depend upon. And It’s nothing to do with immigration, that’s just artificial lines on a map. This is a global issue, which is a problem in itself because we have no effective global governance by which to address such issues.

https://populationmatters.org/

For me I've wasted my life. Greg can have my allocation of 2 children.

I don’t agree that not having children is the definition of a wasted life.

 

[malcolm]

I've just had another annoyance so please ignore me. I'll be doing my bit for the environment with another month of box ticking paperwork and another couple of grand of surveys. It's very environmentally friendly as It means I won't have the money to go on holiday next year.

Don't worry about additions to the population on my part - there will be no child making as most women are sensible enough to avoid attractive young gentlemen like me who are in a constant rage.

But it is a new age - stuff is really stupid these days.

 

[Greg.Hobson]

. . .

This is a new age. You want to nest and have children. But how can you afford a nest?

For me I've wasted my life. Greg can have my allocation of 2 children.

AND https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth?language=en

That lecture is one of those T'interweb things that has stuck in my mind. Education - just one of those many resources that will provide the answers. As for taking your allocation, it was my pleasure

I consider myself blessed - I stumbled into a profession that paid well, I didn't know how good my pension deal was until it was too late to stop Gordon Brown p*ss*ng on it for my sons, someone who many thought worked for me (mainly due to him being so much younger than me) taught me how to do the renting bit and then the fates conspired to present me with the opportunity to "retire" at 48 years old. Even as I write this, I cannot believe how lucky I am - and next month the government start giving me £££'shundreds more per month for the rest of my life!

I intend to stay lucky and live as long as possible. I know that, of itself, doesn't help the environment, but I don't know what will happen next - I may save the world!

 

[plasticpigeon]

. . .

This is a new age. You want to nest and have children. But how can you afford a nest?

For me I've wasted my life. Greg can have my allocation of 2 children.

AND https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth?language=en

That lecture is one of those T'interweb things that has stuck in my mind. Education - just one of those many resources that will provide the answers. As for taking your allocation, it was my pleasure

I consider myself blessed - I stumbled into a profession that paid well, I didn't know how good my pension deal was until it was too late to stop Gordon Brown p*ss*ng on it for my sons, someone who many thought worked for me (mainly due to him being so much younger than me) taught me how to do the renting bit and then the fates conspired to present me with the opportunity to "retire" at 48 years old. Even as I write this, I cannot believe how lucky I am - and next month the government start giving me £££'shundreds more per month for the rest of my life!

I intend to stay lucky and live as long as possible. I know that, of itself, doesn't help the environment, but I don't know what will happen next - I may save the world!

Save the gloating for facebook

 

[wobs]

That comes across as mean Flyfisher. If someone manages to settle while still in child bearing or producing age they are really lucky and must have as many children as they possibly can.

This is a new age. You want to nest and have children. But how can you afford a nest?

For me I've wasted my life. Greg can have my allocation of 2 children.

AND https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth?language=en

For further reading on the late great Hans Rosling, see here:
https://www.gapminder.org/tag/population-growth/

[Ramble mode]

If we want to put a stop to over population, we must tackle poverty. People do not start having as many children as possible when the conditions are right, and in fact, birth rates have dropped in nearly every country, other than the odd outlier (eg. Afghanistan or Niger).

But world population is set to plateau anyway, largely on the back of this (and work done in poorer countries). What is a killer environmentally, is economic growth. Both in terms of plastic waste and carbon emissions.

If we want clean economic growth though, we need to redesign how our system works, and move away from GDP measurements. Some countries have started to eg. NZ measures human well being, but when the system in which you live is based upon damaging growth, it becomes much more difficult to do good.

Further reading:
https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/

We can of course not fly, cut our consumption, maybe even install renewables, but these are of limited benefit when our unintended impacts as a country are huge. People go through many mobile phones in their life, we drive a great deal, import countless goods made in China, and eat lots of beef (and fruit & veg grown in greenhouses).

Perhaps the best thing we can do while in such a system is just not become rich. Although living in a period property, we don't generally achieve that anyway.
[/ramble mode]

 

[Flyfisher]

In a world of finite resources, sharing those resources among fewer people would surely help reduce poverty. But of course these are really political issues and, so far, mankind has shown no real progress towards sorting out the distribution of wealth to the benefit of all. I see nothing on the horizon that is likely to change that. Again, these are global problems but we have no effective global governance by which to address them. All the international ‘talking shops’ like the UN and IPCC are just that and have no powers of implementation. So even if they know what must be done there’s practically zero chance they can make it happen. I’m not optimistic.

 

[Greg.Hobson]

Sounds like we share the same glass. Mine's half full, what's yours?

 

[malcolm]

I didn't realise Hans was late. I enjoyed his work. In a different box video he demonstrated that the population of developed countries would decrease and the polulation of Africa would continue to increase and everyone will get older but after that things will probably settle down.

Politics are something I won't usually discuss on the internet, but for this time and for one time only - It does all feel like lip service and nothing effective and I can completely understand that. Speaking from the sharp end they can put out some rules for those of us unfortunate enough to go through things like a change of use, but it is maddening and way more money goes on paperwork than insulation. To implement the same rules on everybody else would be really unpopular so there is no way they are going to do that. Wouldn't help either as it results in comfort spending.

I have noticed a drive to replace old things with new things in order to save the world. In many cases I feel that keeping the old things going a bit longer might better save the world as it would avoid the additional impact of building new stuff. Especially as I now have an old house with a C energy rating that in real life uses way less energy than the new house next door that presumably has a much better energy rating.

 

[Me!]

For anyone interested in energy (carbon) saving, I do recommend the book How Bad Are Bananas.
It is very honest about how difficult it is to accurately calculate the carbon impact of things, but has a very good go at showing methods and examples. It does have one (small) section where the author worked with Historic Scotland to see if it was best to knock down old houses and build new ones, update the old ones, or leave the old exactly as they are. (For anyone interested, the answer is to update the old ones)
It also covers things like keeping an old inefficient car and continuing to benefit from the embodied energy in its creation vs the new energy required to build a new and much more efficient model.
But at the smaller scale it also covers the energy cost of sending a text message or doing a web-search.
I found it all very interesting.