"Doing my bit" for climate change: why bother?

[parmenides3]

I agree with a lot of what you say P3. Regarding friends and sex, one must be careful not to come across as a "tree hugging nutter" or it will have the opposite affect

My wife calls me Meldrew as I keep the central heating thermostat down to 17 C and can't wait to get the heating off altogether ! Reason - I don't like throwing money away. Although there are 6 in my family we produce less than 1 bin bag of rubbish per week, the rest is recycled/composted- reason I don't like waste. I drive an old diesel to work which churns out 55 mpg- reason, I don't like throwing money away, and it never breaks down! I am a bit of a sceptic when it comes to AGW but we can do the above without really trying that hard.

Out of interest P3 what job do you do ?

Now that Leonardo di Caprio, Brad and Angelica, and various other modern day 'role models' are coming out of the green closet, it seems likely that a 'caring' attitude is increasingly going to be seen as 'sexy'; i.e. , a desirable trait in a person. This is important, because few people currently find the idea of spending a few bob on lagging a boiler or insulating a loft as appealing as spending ten times the amount taking the family to Disneyworld, or buying a plasma TV, and who can blame them?

Now that there's a government white paper which will cut out local planning restictions on wind and solar installations in cities, there's a chance that a rooftop wind turbine could become the next 'must have' home accessory. Since it actually reduces energy bills, it should also be an asset which adds value to a home, just as a new kitchen or bathroom can.

As I understand it, the main obstacle to people doing something simple, such as insulating a loft, is simply lack of will. We don't tend to do new things because we think we should; we tend to because we feel we need to. One of the points of my original post is that such a need doesn't have to be a compulsion based on guilt; instead, we can see it as a pratical and attractive enhancement of our personal wealth and status. Being realistic, though, I can't see the chat up line; 'Hi, I've just lagged my boiler to save the planet...' having a high success rate.

Too often, people believe that doing something environmentally friendly must involve sacrifice. It doesn't. Improving domestic energy efficiency, especially since energy prices have gone up so much in recent years, is a benefit, not a cost.

My job? I am just about to give up being a teacher. Before that, I managed a bookshop, amongst other things. Currently, I am doing a part-time masters degree in environmental ethics/philosophy. I am looking for some profitable occupation in the South of England. Any offers?

:)P

[Mr Sleet]

Now that Leonardo di Caprio, Brad and Angelica, and various other modern day 'role models' are coming out of the green closet, it seems likely that a 'caring' attitude is increasingly going to be seen as 'sexy'; i.e. , a desirable trait in a person. This is important, because few people currently find the idea of spending a few bob on lagging a boiler or insulating a loft as appealing as spending ten times the amount taking the family to Disneyworld, or buying a plasma TV, and who can blame them?

Now that there's a government white paper which will cut out local planning restictions on wind and solar installations in cities, there's a chance that a rooftop wind turbine could become the next 'must have' home accessory. Since it actually reduces energy bills, it should also be an asset which adds value to a home, just as a new kitchen or bathroom can.

As I understand it, the main obstacle to people doing something simple, such as insulating a loft, is simply lack of will. We don't tend to do new things because we think we should; we tend to because we feel we need to. One of the points of my original post is that such a need doesn't have to be a compulsion based on guilt; instead, we can see it as a pratical and attractive enhancement of our personal wealth and status. Being realistic, though, I can't see the chat up line; 'Hi, I've just lagged my boiler to save the planet...' having a high success rate.

Too often, people believe that doing something environmentally friendly must involve sacrifice. It doesn't. Improving domestic energy efficiency, especially since energy prices have gone up so much in recent years, is a benefit, not a cost.

My job? I am just about to give up being a teacher. Before that, I managed a bookshop, amongst other things. Currently, I am doing a part-time masters degree in environmental ethics/philosophy. I am looking for some profitable occupation in the South of England. Any offers?

:)P

How about "environmental consultant" then ?

Better still, "CO2 consultant"- mention CO2 and everyone looks up

[Thundery wintry showers]

Too often, people believe that doing something environmentally friendly must involve sacrifice. It doesn't. Improving domestic energy efficiency, especially since energy prices have gone up so much in recent years, is a benefit, not a cost.

:)P

I highlighted this one as it's a very important point, and the main reason, IMO, why 'why bother' can be a frustrating attitude to deal with. I totally sympathise with those who don't want to make lots of sacrifices; indeed whenever I come across "motorists should be ostracised and banished from society" type discussions you'll usually find me siding more with the motorists. But there's no good reason to do nothing when to do something would actually be to our advantage!

[shuggee]

Too often, people believe that doing something environmentally friendly must involve sacrifice. It doesn't. Improving domestic energy efficiency, especially since energy prices have gone up so much in recent years, is a benefit, not a cost.

:lol: P

Indeed TWS. And walking to the bus stop, instead of using the car (if this is feasible) improves one's health etc...

[Gray-Wolf]

Token effort or tokin' effort adds up to just so much hot air.

If you feel the need to salve your abrasions then yes,knock yourself out, if you plain wanna just do whats right then good, go on! if yer think it'll make a spit in hell fire's difference ,well.........

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71022094516.htm

and of course, for the above.....

[Bobby]

Profligate wasteful use is an entrenched part of our culture now. Besides, us driving less, putting things on standby, using things more efficiently in general aren't going to make a blind bit of difference to global resource use. If we reduce our consumption, it just leaves more free for places like China to use. This is Jevon's paradox - something that is unescapable in this global world.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevon%27s_paradox

In economics, the Jevons Paradox is an observation made by William Stanley Jevons, who stated that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease.

[Thundery wintry showers]

...only on the assumption that everything is unavoidably driven by economics and supply-and-demand. As I often say in discussions that involve a heavily capitalist stance, economics is one scientific theory, one way of explaining the world; if we rely upon economics alone as the solution for everything, we may end up missing the greater picture.

[Gray-Wolf]

I sat in a Greek bar in 92' arguing with a couple of recently qualified brokers who were planning their fortune on African/indian Mobile phones. They're probably stinking rich by now but at the cost of our planet. How can you stop individual greed when money and goods seem to have replaced 'happiness' as a major aim in a life???

[Bobby]

UK energy savings 'miscalculated'

Energy savings in UK households could be up to 30% lower than previously thought, jeopardising efforts to cut the nation's carbon dioxide emissions.

The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) blamed the miscalculation on "rebound effects" from energy-saving measures.

As people cut their bills by using more efficient devices, they tend to spend the extra money buying additional goods that cancel out some of the savings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7071463.stm

Jevon's paradox in action.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Magpie

[The PIT]

As I chuck the latest amount of unwanted junk into the recyle bin and listen to the headlines is the Government really interested in the enviroment.

For the third time this week I hear that trains aren't running from Doncaster to point X today is Chesterfield ealier on this week Sheffield. No wonder communters who've got off there I have a problem and got a job are using cars. If you're lucky your work in acompany that turns a blind eye to bad time keeping. Most likely the poor sods unless there management will be summoned to the office as given warnings. I posted earlier that the rollign stock on the Eastern Line is being replaced with older unreliable stock as the franchise changes hands. Why??

50 - 60% of our paper or cardboard waste is unwanted junk from newspapers, charities or over the top packaging. You can't stock the junk unless you cease buying papers or just send the charity letters back which means it's someone elses problem. It's time these examples were dealt with.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Instead of arguing against this Jevon's Paradox and the resultant "that's life" conclusion to anthropogenic pollution/climate change, I'll post a link to an article in New Scientist covering the "why bother" issue:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11658

I'm not in complete agreement with the 26 'climate myths' it shows, as there's some use of terms like "will" and "definitely" when the reality is more like "is indicated if present trends continue" and "is likely to be true", but I do agree with its coverage of the "it can't be helped" sort of stance.

[Bobby]

I think that article is very much out of touch with reality though. We are going to burn every last ounce of fossil fuel we can find, simply because fossil fuels provide abundant, versatile, dense and very cheap energy that nothing else can provide. People assume we can simply wean ourselves off them while transitioning to a utopian clean renewable future run off solar panels, wind, geothermal etc and still grow our economy. It is fantasy because no oher energy resource, apart from nuclear perhaps (which is also non-renewable and must be replaced eventually anyway) is even close to being as useful in any aspect as fossil fuels.

Nobody is going to ignore all this vast, cheap abundant useful energy that fossil fuels provide and instead move towards slow, expensive, difficult limited energy that all the others provide, especially the developing world who cannot afford the costs. Do you really think China is going to stop using oil and coal and start using solar panels to power hydrogen cars or something instead? Of course not. Economic growth comes above all else. We will never voluntarily reduce our emissions.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I am not assuming that this problem can definitely be helped, but let's put it this way:

If we are faced by problems, if we assume initially that these problems can be addressed, and take action to try and address them (provided that such action doesn't have serious negative side-effects), then there's always the chance that we may get somewhere. If we don't get anywhere, at least we tried.

Alternatively, if we assume limits and bind ourselves by them, by definition, we constrain ourselves by those limits. In such cases, if those limits aren't entirely unavoidable, we're essentially saying "that's life" to a problem which isn't a fact of life.

History teaches that societies, social norms et al. can often be changed over time if there is the will. There will almost certainly have been people around in the 1920s insisting "racism and sexism are ingrained in our culture; you can't change society, that's just the way it is", yet almost a century later, we have made appreciable progress at tackling those issues. Our current money/possession-obsessed culture may be another such case. I don't advocate abolishing capitalism altogether by any means- but I do think that we need to move towards political systems where all factors are considered, rather than just economics and free markets. Money is a positive thing, but it is far from being the only thing that matters.

This feels a bit like a circular argument too, of the form: Challenge: "I'm not convinced that limitation A is true", Response: "Assume Limitation A is true, therefore Limitation A is true"

[Essan]

I think that article is very much out of touch with reality though. We are going to burn every last ounce of fossil fuel we can find, simply because fossil fuels provide abundant, versatile, dense and very cheap energy that nothing else can provide. People assume we can simply wean ourselves off them while transitioning to a utopian clean renewable future run off solar panels, wind, geothermal etc and still grow our economy. It is fantasy because no oher energy resource, apart from nuclear perhaps (which is also non-renewable and must be replaced eventually anyway) is even close to being as useful in any aspect as fossil fuels.

Nobody is going to ignore all this vast, cheap abundant useful energy that fossil fuels provide and instead move towards slow, expensive, difficult limited energy that all the others provide, especially the developing world who cannot afford the costs. Do you really think China is going to stop using oil and coal and start using solar panels to power hydrogen cars or something instead? Of course not. Economic growth comes above all else. We will never voluntarily reduce our emissions.

The difference between a sentient and non sentient species, is that one plans for tomorrow whilst the other only cares about today.

[Devonian]

I think that article is very much out of touch with reality though. We are going to burn every last ounce of fossil fuel we can find, simply because fossil fuels provide abundant, versatile, dense and very cheap energy that nothing else can provide. People assume we can simply wean ourselves off them while transitioning to a utopian clean renewable future run off solar panels, wind, geothermal etc and still grow our economy. It is fantasy because no oher energy resource, apart from nuclear perhaps (which is also non-renewable and must be replaced eventually anyway) is even close to being as useful in any aspect as fossil fuels.

Nobody is going to ignore all this vast, cheap abundant useful energy that fossil fuels provide and instead move towards slow, expensive, difficult limited energy that all the others provide, especially the developing world who cannot afford the costs. Do you really think China is going to stop using oil and coal and start using solar panels to power hydrogen cars or something instead? Of course not. Economic growth comes above all else. We will never voluntarily reduce our emissions.

I thought I agreed entirely with this post but change the last sentence to contain the problems 'lead in petrol', or 'fit catalytic converters', or 'rid the planet of smallpox' and you see what we can do. But, I do think that, with the demise of the kind of govts that came in after the war and their replacement with more individualistic ones, such progress has become more and more difficult. That isn't progress.

Edited November 5, 2007 by Devonian

[HighPressure]

I am not sure if this warrents a new thread but does come under the realm of 'doing my bit'.

Can someone explain to me if I/we can effectively purchase carbon credits either individually or on a business basis? There has been a lot talked about changing light bulbs and getting smaller cars but I wonder if purchasing credits is a reality (like I can go buy some today?) and if they carry a future monetary value. I understand the priniciple of these things which sounds good but have no idea of the practical side of it.

In a nutshell can I both help reduce CO2 by buying them and can I do so in a way that I could sell later on?

I would welcome some information from someone who actually knows about these credits.

Thanks!

[Bobby]

I thought I agreed entirely with this post but change the last sentence to contain the problems 'lead in petrol', or 'fit catalytic converters', or 'rid the planet of smallpox' and you see what we can do. But, I do think that, with the demise of the kind of govts that came in after the war and their replacement with more individualistic ones, such progress has become more and more difficult. That isn't progress.

True, what I mean though is that we will never reduce consumption voluntarily. Catalytic converters, carbon sequestration, perhaps offsetting could help emissions somewhat, so perhaps we should be focusing on those instead instead of trying to be more efficient or using less, which won't work.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Magpie