Climate Change.

[Peg Leg]

There are going to be a lot of solutions but how about getting the low hanging ones into play straight away.
1. Adjust timers to come on even fifteen minutes later than usual and off a similar amount earlier.
2. Empty the car of any extraneous junk.
3. Unplug or at the very least power off applications when not in use
I'm sure there are loads of small things similar to above.
Bottom money in your pocket for very little effort.

There were over 500 fossil fuel lobbyists at Cop26, fix that. The fossil fuel industry's greatest accomplishment in the past 50 years is the successful crafting of the narrative that everyone needs to "do their bit". 20 Companies (not countries) are responsible for 35% of the worlds carbon emissions since 1965.

I get all of that.
However, who uses their products.
Absolving the individual from responsibility isn't the answer either.
Next time you fill up your car just think to yourself, I'm supporting one of those 20 companies.
I don't see any reason why the individual can't be expected to contribute.
You could substitute the word individual with consumer btw and then ask yourself Consumers of what?
So adjust your timers. empty your car etc and don't wait for governments and businesses to sort things out because it will be a long wait.
Here's another one, only half fill your car, that will be a few litres less weight in the car and less fuel consumed.
Save a little it could mean a lot.

CFC's were a problem, so they were phased out and that worked.

[ronk]

The Montreal Protocol was tough but a lot easier and a lot clearer. It was a few chemicals with feasible replacements and involved a switch.

CO2 is a proxy for heat and electrical power, along with materials like cement, fertilizer and plastic. There's no easy fix like switching from petrol to diesel or going back to wrapping burgers in paper and cardboard.

[Oldschool]

There were over 500 fossil fuel lobbyists at Cop26, fix that. The fossil fuel industry's greatest accomplishment in the past 50 years is the successful crafting of the narrative that everyone needs to "do their bit". 20 Companies (not countries) are responsible for 35% of the worlds carbon emissions since 1965.

I get all of that.
However, who uses their products.
Absolving the individual from responsibility isn't the answer either.
Next time you fill up your car just think to yourself, I'm supporting one of those 20 companies.
I don't see any reason why the individual can't be expected to contribute.
You could substitute the word individual with consumer btw and then ask yourself Consumers of what?
So adjust your timers. empty your car etc and don't wait for governments and businesses to sort things out because it will be a long wait.
Here's another one, only half fill your car, that will be a few litres less weight in the car and less fuel consumed.
Save a little it could mean a lot.

CFC's were a problem, so they were phased out and that worked.

Your point being?
I stopped using aerosol sprays in the 70's.
That was a personal (informed) choice and demonstrates that the individual decisions we make are very important and can make a difference.

[Oldschool]

The Montreal Protocol was tough but a lot easier and a lot clearer. It was a few chemicals with feasible replacements and involved a switch.

CO2 is a proxy for heat and electrical power, along with materials like cement, fertilizer and plastic. There's no easy fix like switching from petrol to diesel or going back to wrapping burgers in paper and cardboard.

You're right and it's why there is a responsibility on everyone to make their effort to make a difference.
For example I'm going to get a BER done to find up what I can do to improve it and what costs might be involved.

[Oldschoolsocks]

I get all of that.
However, who uses their products.
Absolving the individual from responsibility isn't the answer either.
Next time you fill up your car just think to yourself, I'm supporting one of those 20 companies.
I don't see any reason why the individual can't be expected to contribute.
You could substitute the word individual with consumer btw and then ask yourself Consumers of what?
So adjust your timers. empty your car etc and don't wait for governments and businesses to sort things out because it will be a long wait.
Here's another one, only half fill your car, that will be a few litres less weight in the car and less fuel consumed.
Save a little it could mean a lot.

CFC's were a problem, so they were phased out and that worked.

Your point being?
I stopped using aerosol sprays in the 70's.
That was a personal (informed) choice and demonstrates that the individual decisions we make are very important and can make a difference.

yeah but it's well known that you're an edge case Oldbean

[Oldschool]

CFC's were a problem, so they were phased out and that worked.

Your point being?
I stopped using aerosol sprays in the 70's.
That was a personal (informed) choice and demonstrates that the individual decisions we make are very important and can make a difference.

yeah but it's well known that you're an edge case Oldbean

Could you say that in English please?

If doing something to reduce the amount of CO2 we are responsible as individuals is on the edge then guilty as charged and proud to be.

[Peg Leg]

The Montreal Protocol was tough but a lot easier and a lot clearer. It was a few chemicals with feasible replacements and involved a switch.

CO2 is a proxy for heat and electrical power, along with materials like cement, fertilizer and plastic. There's no easy fix like switching from petrol to diesel or going back to wrapping burgers in paper and cardboard.

If governments agreed the phasing out of fossil fuel electricity generation, I'd say BP and Co would be very quick to pivot their R&D to renewables or sustainable alternatives.

[ronk]

The Montreal Protocol was tough but a lot easier and a lot clearer. It was a few chemicals with feasible replacements and involved a switch.

CO2 is a proxy for heat and electrical power, along with materials like cement, fertilizer and plastic. There's no easy fix like switching from petrol to diesel or going back to wrapping burgers in paper and cardboard.

If governments agreed the phasing out of fossil fuel electricity generation, I'd say BP and Co would be very quick to pivot their R&D to renewables or sustainable alternatives.

They can agree to whatever they want. The tech isn't there yet to run sustainable power at the required scale and solving that problem is multiple orders of magnitude more difficult than CFCs.

But it's not impossible, some people thought that a vaccine against a coronavirus was impossible. 25 of them in use and regulated (in some part of the world) less than 2 years after COVID-19 was identified is wild.

Global warming is harder and we aren't trying nearly as hard.

[Peg Leg]

I get all of that.
However, who uses their products.
Absolving the individual from responsibility isn't the answer either.
Next time you fill up your car just think to yourself, I'm supporting one of those 20 companies.
I don't see any reason why the individual can't be expected to contribute.
You could substitute the word individual with consumer btw and then ask yourself Consumers of what?
So adjust your timers. empty your car etc and don't wait for governments and businesses to sort things out because it will be a long wait.
Here's another one, only half fill your car, that will be a few litres less weight in the car and less fuel consumed.
Save a little it could mean a lot.

CFC's were a problem, so they were phased out and that worked.

Your point being?
I stopped using aerosol sprays in the 70's.
That was a personal (informed) choice and demonstrates that the individual decisions we make are very important and can make a difference.

My point OS is that individuals changing habits is mere window dressing in the grand scheme of things. Carbon credits for example are a corporate shell game that allows the likes of Google to state that they are carbon neutral... they are not. They purchase carbon credits from 3rd world countries that have no hope of reaching their carbon cap.
Yes you are 100% correct and very progressive when it comes to all of us playing our part in climate change, but my point is that the messaging in the media and marketing output is serving as a distraction to the very real and large challenge facing humanity, as it looks to the markets to decide whether capital or the planet should win out

[Oldschool]

CFC's were a problem, so they were phased out and that worked.

Your point being?
I stopped using aerosol sprays in the 70's.
That was a personal (informed) choice and demonstrates that the individual decisions we make are very important and can make a difference.

My point OS is that individuals changing habits is mere window dressing in the grand scheme of things. Carbon credits for example are a corporate shell game that allows the likes of Google to state that they are carbon neutral... they are not. They purchase carbon credits from 3rd world countries that have no hope of reaching their carbon cap.
Yes you are 100% correct and very progressive when it comes to all of us playing our part in climate change, but my point is that the messaging in the media and marketing output is serving as a distraction to the very real and large challenge facing humanity, as it looks to the markets to decide whether capital or the planet should win out

Carbon Credits just like Hybrid cars was bullsh!t from the word go.
It suited politicians just as much as big business to eulogise them so to speak.
But it's up to people to make the difference in what they do and who they vote for.
To my own shame? I've never given a Green Party politician a first preference and there are a lot of "me's" out there.
My main reason for not voting for them is that I thought they were being way too optimistic but it's time to give them a lot more of a say.
I've never joined a political party but I may be about to.
As I said it's up to individuals to try to make a difference.
Think about the alternative if they don't.
BTW Window dressing is exactly what I would call Carbon Credits - Being seen to be doing something or lets be honest pretending to do something.
Nybrids more of the same.

[paddyor]

There are going to be a lot of solutions but how about getting the low hanging ones into play straight away.
1. Adjust timers to come on even fifteen minutes later than usual and off a similar amount earlier.
2. Empty the car of any extraneous junk.
3. Unplug or at the very least power off applications when not in use
I'm sure there are loads of small things similar to above.
Bottom money in your pocket for very little effort.

There were over 500 fossil fuel lobbyists at Cop26, fix that. The fossil fuel industry's greatest accomplishment in the past 50 years is the successful crafting of the narrative that everyone needs to "do their bit". 20 Companies (not countries) are responsible for 35% of the worlds carbon emissions since 1965.

Thats pretty meaningless tbf. They're not doing it for the craic. And those companies are likely owned in part or majority by pension funds such a the retired janitors of Idaho.

[paddyor]

CFC's were a problem, so they were phased out and that worked.

Your point being?
I stopped using aerosol sprays in the 70's.
That was a personal (informed) choice and demonstrates that the individual decisions we make are very important and can make a difference.

My point OS is that individuals changing habits is mere window dressing in the grand scheme of things. Carbon credits for example are a corporate shell game that allows the likes of Google to state that they are carbon neutral... they are not. They purchase carbon credits from 3rd world countries that have no hope of reaching their carbon cap.
Yes you are 100% correct and very progressive when it comes to all of us playing our part in climate change, but my point is that the messaging in the media and marketing output is serving as a distraction to the very real and large challenge facing humanity, as it looks to the markets to decide whether capital or the planet should win out

The Cap and trade system worked really well to cap emmisisons when it was introduced in the US but I can well imagine it's become debased over time. Even in that form I think it's good that at least some money goes to developing countries which are probably where we were 70 years ago? It's easy to dismiss everything as some corporate play but have you any ideas about how to keep those countries engaged in the project?

I've not a fan of the "everyone do their part stuff". It's little more than the extension of the logic of austerity to everyday life. And it's been shown to be a mirage. Durable plastic bags and tote bags are more carbon intensive than cheap ones depending on use(I think the tote ones require 10k uses), though I will concede in ireland there was a general litter problem with the basic ones. Or Recycling for landfill in china.

I don't know where you get the bolded from. There's a climate story every week and the message is DOOM! Which I don't think is helpful. Governemnts are pretty dumb when it comes to this stuff. Whenever I hear some politican talking about "sustainability" "holisitic climate friendly" or whatever buzzwords du jour I always think of Donald Trump parodying them with his "Cyber". There's notable exceptions like the Germans investing in solar and the brits mvoing against coal but there's other stuff like Ireland banning nuclear. Ultimately I don't think there's any lasting constituency for a degrowth strategy so whether you like it or not govts are tethered to the faith of markets too.

[Keith]

Your point being?
I stopped using aerosol sprays in the 70's.
That was a personal (informed) choice and demonstrates that the individual decisions we make are very important and can make a difference.

My point OS is that individuals changing habits is mere window dressing in the grand scheme of things. Carbon credits for example are a corporate shell game that allows the likes of Google to state that they are carbon neutral... they are not. They purchase carbon credits from 3rd world countries that have no hope of reaching their carbon cap.
Yes you are 100% correct and very progressive when it comes to all of us playing our part in climate change, but my point is that the messaging in the media and marketing output is serving as a distraction to the very real and large challenge facing humanity, as it looks to the markets to decide whether capital or the planet should win out

The Cap and trade system worked really well to cap emmisisons when it was introduced in the US but I can well imagine it's become debased over time. Even in that form I think it's good that at least some money goes to developing countries which are probably where we were 70 years ago? It's easy to dismiss everything as some corporate play but have you any ideas about how to keep those countries engaged in the project?

I've not a fan of the "everyone do their part stuff". It's little more than the extension of the logic of austerity to everyday life. And it's been shown to be a mirage. Durable plastic bags and tote bags are more carbon intensive than cheap ones depending on use(I think the tote ones require 10k uses), though I will concede in ireland there was a general litter problem with the basic ones. Or Recycling for landfill in china.

I don't know where you get the bolded from. There's a climate story every week and the message is DOOM! Which I don't think is helpful. Governemnts are pretty dumb when it comes to this stuff. Whenever I hear some politican talking about "sustainability" "holisitic climate friendly" or whatever buzzwords du jour I always think of Donald Trump parodying them with his "Cyber". There's notable exceptions like the Germans investing in solar and the brits mvoing against coal but there's other stuff like Ireland banning nuclear. Ultimately I don't think there's any lasting constituency for a degrowth strategy so whether you like it or not govts are tethered to the faith of markets too.

Was that not a Europe thing? Lithuania had to close their massive nuclear plant which employed 5k people in order to join the EU. Seems crazy to me now when you see the dilapidated state the country is in now, I'm sure many of those jobs that were lost paid well.

[ronk]

Cap and trade can work locally. It helps that it entrenches the power players so they buy into it. It breaks down completely when trying to apply globally with rapidly emerging markets. Kyoto was a mistake for that reason. It focused on supply not demand. e.g. a ton of steel produced in Germany might create less CO2 than a ton in India. But a system that capped Germany just shifted production elsewhere. Lots of pain for negative gain.

Offsetting isn't perfect but it's fast and the point of CO2e is that a ton of it is the same everywhere. It's cheaper to pay someone else to be more efficient than to cut certain emissions yourself. And at least that funded projects to cut emissions. Otherwise industries like airlines would wash their hands. Nothing can be done to why try.

Incentives should favour helping the environment rather than sack cloth for the environment. Cloud data centers are usually a fair bit more efficient than the ones they are replacing. They generate big headline figures but if the total goes down then it's a good thing.

Crypto is done quieter they don't care about offsets or funding renewable. But you can't stop the mining from here, you'd have to restrict it at exchanges and reduce demand bit by bit until it becomes uneconomical. Bitcoin alone uses more electricity than Argentina https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952

[Peg Leg]

My point OS is that individuals changing habits is mere window dressing in the grand scheme of things. Carbon credits for example are a corporate shell game that allows the likes of Google to state that they are carbon neutral... they are not. They purchase carbon credits from 3rd world countries that have no hope of reaching their carbon cap.
Yes you are 100% correct and very progressive when it comes to all of us playing our part in climate change, but my point is that the messaging in the media and marketing output is serving as a distraction to the very real and large challenge facing humanity, as it looks to the markets to decide whether capital or the planet should win out

...

I don't know where you get the bolded from. There's a climate story every week and the message is DOOM! Which I don't think is helpful...

My point there my good sir, is that the messaging and marketing is built around creating a safe space for corporations to claim carbon neutrality where it is not the case, or the feel good fig leaf around sustainable packaging (although the production of the product is likely to be the greater problem (see electric vehicles)) or the solution being in the hands of consumers (its not, real change requires more government regulation).