The Deathly Silence

[FamilyWiggs]

Bring back Malthus, I say.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'd love to be able to drive onto a train on the M180 and wake up the next morning in Cornwall, still with a full tank of petrol.

Many years ago (late '80s) we took a motoring holiday along the west/north of Scotland, ending up in Orkney. After a couple of weeks we thought it would be nice to get back home (Hertfordshire) without a long drive and duly made enquiries about motor-rail. I don't recall the logistics but I do remember that the cost for the car alone was around £200, even back then. We drove home.

Motor-rail is simply not economically feasible. If it was it would be widely used; there are no technical issues. I seem to remember that Kings Cross station in London had a motor-rail terminal about 30 years ago - I doubt the service has died out because of any technical problem.

 

[biffvernon]

There are lots of things that are not 'economically feasible' because the externality of the environmental cost of burning fossil fuel is not included in the price. There are even more things that will cease to be 'economically feasible' when those externalities are internalised. Like almost all use of fossil fuel.

Long term use of motorways might be electric vehicles fed from trolley-bus style arms reaching to overhead cables, the electricity provided by solar/wind/tidal/wave/geothermal power.

In the shorter term, localisation that removes the need for much transport is the quick fix.

Some of the contributions to this thread still seem to underestimate the scale of the problem our children will face. Well-intentioned and every little helps but we need change by orders of magnitude. We are going to be materially poorer; it's not a matter of choice. The Transition Town movement seeks to maintain quality of life, and that includes an appreciation of the cultural heritage of our historic built environment. Join your local Transition Initiative. There are currently 170 to chose from.

 

[yamin]

As one of the probable 'underestimating' of the contributors here, can I just say, Biff, without sarcasm, how much more helpful your last post was? As one who has repeatedly aired my frustrations at the level of shouting about the problem without any mention of 'possible' solutions or actions, I am finding this whole thread so much more positive with its mention of actions. Your message outlines a couple, whcih may be hard, which may or may not take off, but, for me, it gives me a reason to engage with the whole issue, rather than just think, well, theres nothing we can possibly do, so I might as well give up! Like it or not, I am probably more representative of the 'mass' of society, with all its good and bad, but your last post is going to lead me to look at and maybe join my nearest Transition Initiative for a start.

I know the non listening and underestimating masses must be so frustrating for you, but give a little, i.e. something to grab onto, rather than just scary figures, and more of us WILL engage. (After all, how many smokers give up because of the absolutely proven deathly health effects, no matter how scary they make the ads? Answer is, not many!)

Thank you Biff, really, for a post I can relate to.

 

[biffvernon]

Thank you Biff, really, for a post I can relate to.

Nah, it was rubbish. I wrote 'chose' when it should have been 'choose' in the last line.

 

[yamin]

Oh well, in that case, forget it, I'm off to buy a Gin Palace and a Leah Jet! :roll:

 

[another_richard]

You do your bit to keep the planet going that little bit longer so someone else can eek out that bit more profit from its natural resources.

I have said it before:

If you are really serious about tackling climate change everyone should make a consious effort not to have children. You know who you are

The rest is just hot air and filler invented by people to keep you all busy chattin amoungst yerselfs while they continue to rape the planet.

 

[biffvernon]

Of course it depends on the child. Most of those born in Bangladesh will have a much smaller impact on the planet than most born in Britain. And even in Britain a lot depends on what they do. I'm way past having any more but here's what mine does: http://europe.theoildrum.com/ (see top right under 'editors'.

 

[yamin]

You do your bit to keep the planet going that little bit longer so someone else can eek out that bit more profit from its natural resources.

I have said it before:

If you are really serious about tackling climate change everyone should make a consious effort not to have children. You know who you are

The rest is just hot air and filler invented by people to keep you all busy chattin amoungst yerselfs while they continue to rape the planet.

OK, great, thanks for that, what a great solution, I'm sure if they make you prime minister that one will no doubt be happily adopted. Die out from lack of resources or lack of new births? Think I'd rather the first, - if we are to cease to be by either scenario, I'd rather have the chance of an as yet unborn scientist discovering a better way to manage this.

And just what is "you know who you are" meant to mean? I of course don't expect you to answer a personal question, but after such a hostile phrase, I feel able to say - presumably you have made a choice, purely and simply for the environment and for absolutely no other reason, biological or social, not to have children then.....

 

[robgil]

but we are all responsible for raping the planet , each and every one of us through consumerism.
if there is no demand there will be no supply.

 

[Flyfisher]

Well-intentioned and every little helps but we need change by orders of magnitude. We are going to be materially poorer; it's not a matter of choice.

I entirely agree about the 'orders of magnitude' bit, but I don't believe people will accept it. When you say "we" are going to be materially poorer, who are you referring to - "we" that are living today or "we" as a species in the future? "We" that are living today do, in fact, have a choice about whether to become materially poorer for the sake of future generation but, unfortunately, I see no signs that "we today" are willing to make that sacrifice for the sake of those in the future.

Here's an example from today's BBC news website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8079698.stm.
This must surely be one of the simpler problems facing the world today. How many people in the 'first world' really could not afford to give up 20% of their income to help solve such an appalling problem? But we don't (en masse, anyway). How is it possible that we can happily spend so much of our time, effort and resources on worrying about preserving old buildings when 1.2 billion people are living on less than $2 per day and 400 million are chronically hungry? - and that's just in South Asia.

If we can put this level of suffering-right-now out of our minds and carry on as normal, it's not hard to understand why we're unlikely to respond to a problem that is far less tangible and decades in the future.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

it's not hard to understand why we're unlikely to respond to a problem that is far less tangible and decades in the future.

No doubt I'll be flame toasted for saying, but....

The other side of the problem is that rational scientifically trained people like me can still remain unconvinced that climate change is necessarily a man-made problem on the scale being projected. We didn't cause the last ice-age, nor bring about the change that ended it. 65k years ago the sea levels between polynesia and Australia were 100m lower (at least according to the BBC programme the other night on humankind's history) - that puts our current sea level changes into a very different context.

It is understandable when rational people are not yet convinced, that we are less than enthusiastic about becoming materially much poorer in order to protect future unknown generations on the other side of the planet from these potential consequences. Add into the mix the infinitessimally small impact of my material poverty on that future geneation unless everyone acts at the same time, and you have all sorts of gaming theory scenarios going on.

The third side of this ,I think, is that we seem to conflate the projected climate change problems, with the traditional Malthusian problem of growing populatons and finite resources. We have technically and technologically solved this paradox whenever it threatened previously. Genetic modification (artificial selection or GM) of rice yields is potentially (largely) all we need to do (and have done to date) to continue to feed our growing population. The demand for developing nations to match our material wealth will either not be met (leading to conflict) or be met through new technological solutions (like not burning the remaining oil but turning it into useful plastics instead).

The fourth side is that we then add in our ethical angst about differential wealth/poverty across the globe.

Is it any wonder then that we are prone to take a 1/6,000,000,000th view that life on this planet is intrinsically chance-based and unfair, that we are powerless to alter it significantly, and are bio-evolutionarily programmed to do what we can for our immediate gene family regardless of the consequences to unknown members of our species on the other side of the world/in the future.

I await my roasting, my friends!

 

[yamin]

Well said, not even a light saute-ing from me!

 

[yamin]

I agree that the 'selfish gene' should perhaps encourage protection of one's progeny, but it's interesting that, in general, populations with the highest living standards seem to have the lowest birth rate. Of course, genes don't really respond to conscious behaviours and concepts of luxurious living so, in a genetic sense, a first-world multi-millionaire with only one child is a 'genetic failure' compared with a third-world person living in dire poverty with a dozen offspring.

As for accepting a slightly less affluent lifestyle, I don't believe it will work for a small, affluent, proportion of the global population to reduce their own lifestyle (= energy consumption) while the large, poorer, proportion of the population aspires to that very same affluence. It's a bit like 'super-taxing' the very rich; it makes precious little practical difference to anyone although it might make the poor majority feel better.

Interesting article here,

http://cwpe.org/node/136

 

[JoceAndChris]

Bravo too from me re Robin's post. (although a little lightly toasted FamilyWiggs wouldn't go amiss...yum...perhaps with a bit of lamb too?)

I find it very hard to care much, survival of the fittest and all. (sorry if that's a bit Facist). If these poor hungry souls were in front of me I'm sure I'd feel differently, and maybe I'd feel differently if we had kids. But I'm sorry, I can't worry too much about an unknown future full of people I have no connection with.

 

[Lime]

The third side of this ,I think, is that we seem to conflate the projected climate change problems, with the traditional Malthusian problem of growing populatons and finite resources. We have technically and technologically solved this paradox whenever it threatened previously. Genetic modification (artificial selection or GM) of rice yields is potentially (largely) all we need to do (and have done to date) to continue to feed our growing population. The demand for developing nations to match our material wealth will either not be met (leading to conflict) or be met through new technological solutions (like not burning the remaining oil but turning it into useful plastics instead).

What this fails to take into account is what happens to the environment, habitat and ecology with a growing human population.
Food is but a small part of the problem.
Humans are not the only animals on the planet.
The Malthusian solution is let other weaker, poorer humans die.

I don't like plastic, it is one of the most unatural materials in everyday life.
It has a very short term use and is long term waste.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Um - I think my point is the reverse of the basic Mathusian dilemma; ie that technological advances will continue to overcome our non-food resource issues. And yes, that will need us to alter our behaviour - by developing sustainable technolgies, not necessarily reverting back to a more primitive existence.

One of those behaviour changes is to stop burning oil and use it for something more useful and long-lasting - like making plastic (perhaps for cars that are lighter, longer lasting and powered by non-oil electricity). The fact that plastics are currently used for short life things like bags. and then landfilled for decades, does not mean that plastic is bad per se. We just make bad things with it.

 

[Lime]

But I don't think science can overcome our non-food resource issues.
That was my point.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

You may be right - in which case we're all doomed, doomed I tell ye.

I tend to be more optimistic - so far technology/economic progress has resolved the dilemma - and I hope & expect it to continue to do so. Whether we have infinite capacity for this development, and if not where the threshold lies, is I guess, at the heart of the current debate.

I expect that I and the future generations of my family that I can feel personal attachement to, will be long dead before we reach crunch point. Of course, others have a more immediate and urgent view of this and our need to take action.

In so far as I can reconcile this view to my desire to protect our built heritage and plough the "good life", it is that I am concerned about personal sustainable living (own supply of food, water and power) and the quality of my local environment (landfill, green spaces, etc) and economic pressures (cost of oil, etc) . Paradoxically, I find I am doing many of the things the "doomsayers" are arguing I should, but from different motivations.

 

[Lime]

In so far as I can reconcile this view to my desire to protect our built heritage and plough the "good life", it is that I am concerned about personal sustainable living (own supply of food, water and power) and the quality of my local environment (landfill, green spaces, etc) and economic pressures (cost of oil, etc) . Paradoxically, I find I am doing many of the things the "doomsayers" are arguing I should, but from different motivations.

I don't think sustainable living is a viable option for most people, that's one problem of overpopulation.
Also your comment (own supply of food, water) made me think of the Chernobyl aftermath that still lives with us in soil, grass and water.