Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Climate Emergency

1424345474851

Comments

  • Redskin said:
    Redskin said:
    Leuth said:
    Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
    There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'

    We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
    That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms? 
    That's exactly what we are doing. 

    To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years. 

    I know you don't like this response but that's the reality. 
    In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?
    So, you don't eat meat?
    I've massively cut down. Particularly red meat. Generally eat meat once a week, maybe twice. The environment is one of the big reasons (health being the other).
    Right, so you say 'we' should stop eating meat, yet you continue to do yourself.
    Regardless of the fact that you 'eat meat once a week, maybe twice', you still eat meat.
    You're very much from the school of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'

    Where did I say stop eating meat? I said reverse the overconsumption of meat that has exploded over the last 50 years. Cutting meat out of my diet to roughly about 20% of what the average person does is exactly part of that. If everyone (or even half of people) did the same it would have a hugely positive impact on the environment. 

    So yes do exactly as I do please.
    But equally as would not buying many other products / consuming any number of things which are self indulgent purchases. 

    The world has simply moved in and we no longer ‘make do and mend’ and keep things until unusable. 

    Some on here travel great lengths to follow the team, the players might give away kit etc. 

    Meat eating is just one of many things that could be targeted. 




  • Redskin said:
    Redskin said:
    Leuth said:
    Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
    There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'

    We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
    That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms? 
    That's exactly what we are doing. 

    To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years. 

    I know you don't like this response but that's the reality. 
    In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?
    So, you don't eat meat?
    I've massively cut down. Particularly red meat. Generally eat meat once a week, maybe twice. The environment is one of the big reasons (health being the other).
    Right, so you say 'we' should stop eating meat, yet you continue to do yourself.
    Regardless of the fact that you 'eat meat once a week, maybe twice', you still eat meat.
    You're very much from the school of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'

    Where did I say stop eating meat? I said reverse the overconsumption of meat that has exploded over the last 50 years. Cutting meat out of my diet to roughly about 20% of what the average person does is exactly part of that. If everyone (or even half of people) did the same it would have a hugely positive impact on the environment. 

    So yes do exactly as I do please.
    But equally as would not buying many other products / consuming any number of things which are self indulgent purchases. 

    The world has simply moved in and we no longer ‘make do and mend’ and keep things until unusable. 

    Some on here travel great lengths to follow the team, the players might give away kit etc. 

    Meat eating is just one of many things that could be targeted. 




    Completely agree that it's happened in so many areas. I think we should reign back overconsumption in a lot of areas. Meat consumption is one in particular though where there is a lot of evidence of just how bad it is environmentally so we should focus on it.
  • swordfish said:
    Redskin said:
    Leuth said:
    Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
    There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'

    We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
    That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms? 
    That's exactly what we are doing. 

    To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years. 

    I know you don't like this response but that's the reality. 
    In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?
    So, you don't eat meat?
    I've massively cut down. Particularly red meat. Generally eat meat once a week, maybe twice. The environment is one of the big reasons (health being the other).
    That's more of less where I'm at, but I try to spread it out so I consume smaller portions over several days. Definitely eating less than half of what I used to, and seldom red meat. Still have two to three meat free days each week though 

    The vegetarian haggis I tried yesterday was a  bit of an acquired taste. Better than I was expecting, but my wife didn't think much of it.
    Agreed. My portions are definitely smaller when I do eat meat. 
  • One of the biggest problems to the environment is plastic (made with oil by products). How many of you would pay extra to have your milk sold in reusable/recyclable glass bottles instead of plastic containers? 
  • Redskin said:
    Redskin said:
    Leuth said:
    Plant trees. Millions of them. It would take a while to kick in, but trees eat CO2.
    There is a quote from Napoleon when he became emperor. He said he didn't want his troops marching round France in the baking sun, and demanded a tree planting programme. One of his generals, agast, pointed out it would take years for the trees to grow sufficiently to provide shade for the troops, to which Napoleon replied 'all the more reason to start immediately.'

    We need a swathe of new policies to halt climate change, but trees could be planted from tomorrow.
    That's a good idea. But, and hear me out here, how about instead of planting trees, we keep chopping trees down, and replacing them with cattle farms? 
    That's exactly what we are doing. 

    To support the world's population that has doubled over the last 50 years. 

    I know you don't like this response but that's the reality. 
    In that same period meat consumption per person has grown massively. Given we can't easily reverse population growth why don't we try and reverse the overconsuption of meat?
    So, you don't eat meat?
    I've massively cut down. Particularly red meat. Generally eat meat once a week, maybe twice. The environment is one of the big reasons (health being the other).
    Right, so you say 'we' should stop eating meat, yet you continue to do yourself.
    Regardless of the fact that you 'eat meat once a week, maybe twice', you still eat meat.
    You're very much from the school of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'

    Where did I say stop eating meat? I said reverse the overconsumption of meat that has exploded over the last 50 years. Cutting meat out of my diet to roughly about 20% of what the average person does is exactly part of that. If everyone (or even half of people) did the same it would have a hugely positive impact on the environment. 

    So yes do exactly as I do please.
    But equally as would not buying many other products / consuming any number of things which are self indulgent purchases. 

    The world has simply moved in and we no longer ‘make do and mend’ and keep things until unusable. 

    Some on here travel great lengths to follow the team, the players might give away kit etc. 

    Meat eating is just one of many things that could be targeted. 




    Completely agree that it's happened in so many areas. I think we should reign back overconsumption in a lot of areas. Meat consumption is one in particular though where there is a lot of evidence of just how bad it is environmentally so we should focus on it.
    And foreign travel as an example is also something we could cut but we (all) don’t. Cutting down is only a very very small step. 

    I tend to the point that all aspects of our daily consumerism are bad and am
    not  convinced meat eating is the thing to target over and above many aspects of our lives. 

    I did pose a question some time ago (generally) if domestic use of energy has decreased or not given the cost of living pressure - that would be an example of whether we are as a society willing and able to do our bit when there is incentive (penalty?) to do so. 




  • Dansk_Red said:
    One of the biggest problems to the environment is plastic (made with oil by products). How many of you would pay extra to have your milk sold in reusable/recyclable glass bottles instead of plastic containers? 
    Milkman with glass bottles are making a return in quire a big way.
  • Chizz said:

    King Charles will need to consult six different organisations before he can make any changes to the 71 gas-powered lanterns in Buckingham Palace's courtyards.

    The King is looking to refit the lanterns with new mantles to hold LED bulbs, which will make them more energy efficient. 

    But before any work can be done, he needs to seek the views of Historic England, The Metropolitan Police, the Gardens Trust, the Royal Parks and the National Amenity Societies, before going to Westminster Council.

    Out of interest, how do you know this @Chizz It’s a staggering amount of information for a layman to know. Are you employed by the Royal Household? 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Chizz said:

    King Charles will need to consult six different organisations before he can make any changes to the 71 gas-powered lanterns in Buckingham Palace's courtyards.

    The King is looking to refit the lanterns with new mantles to hold LED bulbs, which will make them more energy efficient. 

    But before any work can be done, he needs to seek the views of Historic England, The Metropolitan Police, the Gardens Trust, the Royal Parks and the National Amenity Societies, before going to Westminster Council.

    Out of interest, how do you know this @Chizz It’s a staggering amount of information for a layman to know. Are you employed by the Royal Household? 
    Layman? FFS it's Chizz...
  • Dansk_Red said:
    One of the biggest problems to the environment is plastic (made with oil by products). How many of you would pay extra to have your milk sold in reusable/recyclable glass bottles instead of plastic containers? 
    Milkman with glass bottles are making a return in quire a big way.
    But are you willing to pay a premium of 50% over the supermarket price? I do and have only ever bought milk in supermarkets in an emergency. I am old enough to remember daily milk and bread deliveries by horse drawn carts. 
  • Dansk_Red said:
    One of the biggest problems to the environment is plastic (made with oil by products). How many of you would pay extra to have your milk sold in reusable/recyclable glass bottles instead of plastic containers? 
    Milkman with glass bottles are making a return in quire a big way.
    Define ‘big way’ ?
  • Dansk_Red said:
    One of the biggest problems to the environment is plastic (made with oil by products). How many of you would pay extra to have your milk sold in reusable/recyclable glass bottles instead of plastic containers? 
    Milkman with glass bottles are making a return in quire a big way.
    That’s how we’ve been getting ours for over a year now. Organic milk, in glass bottles and delivered overnight. I tend not to look at what it costs though
  • Dansk_Red said:
    One of the biggest problems to the environment is plastic (made with oil by products). How many of you would pay extra to have your milk sold in reusable/recyclable glass bottles instead of plastic containers? 
    Milkman with glass bottles are making a return in quire a big way.
    Define ‘big way’ ?
    Ten-gallon jars.
  • Dansk_Red said:
    One of the biggest problems to the environment is plastic (made with oil by products). How many of you would pay extra to have your milk sold in reusable/recyclable glass bottles instead of plastic containers? 
    Milkman with glass bottles are making a return in quire a big way.
    Define ‘big way’ ?
    And quire.
  •  @Redskin -  You said:

    I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.

    ‐--------------------

    On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground. 

    I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives. 

    I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions)  are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices? 
  • This thread would be hilarious if the subject wasn’t so tragic. I hate to break it to you but if there is ever any sort of solution to be found, it won’t be done by a few blokes on a football forum.
  • edited January 21
    JaShea99 said:
    This thread would be hilarious if the subject wasn’t so tragic. I hate to break it to you but if there is ever any sort of solution to be found, it won’t be done by a few blokes on a football forum.
    Bang on. I will never eat a sirloin steak again without feeling guilty about it. And I love ketchup with it.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited January 21
    JaShea99 said:
    This thread would be hilarious if the subject wasn’t so tragic. I hate to break it to you but if there is ever any sort of solution to be found, it won’t be done by a few blokes on a football forum.
    It's a shared concern. I find it encouraging to hear of others being proactive in taking actions that go toward the solution, usually  things we're all capable of doing. No shame in posting about that. Debating topics other than football alone is what draws me to CL, and if I think a thread is pointless, I wouldn't read it. I certainly wouldn't post on it to criticize those offering their opinions.
  • Chizz said:
    Chizz said:

    King Charles will need to consult six different organisations before he can make any changes to the 71 gas-powered lanterns in Buckingham Palace's courtyards.

    The King is looking to refit the lanterns with new mantles to hold LED bulbs, which will make them more energy efficient. 

    But before any work can be done, he needs to seek the views of Historic England, The Metropolitan Police, the Gardens Trust, the Royal Parks and the National Amenity Societies, before going to Westminster Council.

    Out of interest, how do you know this @Chizz It’s a staggering amount of information for a layman to know. Are you employed by the Royal Household? 
    Well, I'm not going to give away the precise method by which I've come to acquire this information, in case, by doing so, it gives away national secrets. So, I'll give you a couple of scenarios and leave you to decide which it is. 

    Either, I'm a member of the Royal Household, with enough seniority to provide me with intimate knowledge of His Majesty's aspirations and his logistical and administrative hurdles; but with a very laissez faire attitude to revealing the classified information of my employers... 

    ...or, it was in the papers a couple of days ago. 
    3rd scenario. 
    You work in the Royal Household as Ackworth 
    'S Butler and get your information from him
  •  @Redskin -  You said:

    I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.

    ‐--------------------

    On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground. 

    I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives. 

    I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions)  are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices? 
    I'd be interested in @Redskin's reply, because I think I'm probably on the same page as him.

    This thread appears to be going around in circles with a clear division based on political grounds, becoming apparent.

    Everyone agrees that Climate change is  influenced by the actions of mankind.

    Everyone cares about the environment and wants clean air and oceans.

    In a nutshell, one side believes that rich people and their over consumption of beef, travel etc is the primary problem, solve that and we'll be fine.

    Whilst the other (my side) believes that overpopulation, coupled with making vast numbers of people poorer by imposing Green taxes, limiting drilling etc (thus making energy more expensive) actually exasperates the problem rather than improving it, ie shooting ourselves in the foot.

    Poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns.

    Things like paying to take their rubbish to the tip, or having to pay large electric bills, are to be avoided, whilst installing solar panels or buying electric cars are out of the question for them.
    Cooking on an open fire costs next to nothing, burning garbage costs nothing, throwing effluent into the waterways costs nothing, etc etc

    An ever increasing population, coupled with a decreasing supply, increases costs, people get poorer, pollution gets worse, as does global warming.

  • JaShea99 said:
    This thread would be hilarious if the subject wasn’t so tragic. I hate to break it to you but if there is ever any sort of solution to be found, it won’t be done by a few blokes on a football forum.
    Bang on. I will never eat a sirloin steak again without feeling guilty about it. And I love ketchup with it.
    Ketchup on a sirloin, probably the most offensive thing posted on this thread. Jeezy peeps man.
  • How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.

    Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.

    I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.
  • edited January 21
    Milk - cow calf growth fluid alternatives are available in more easily recyclable cartons than the entirely plastic ones.  :)
  •  @Redskin -  You said:

    I said some time ago on here that I've been aware that we've been abusing the Earth's natural resources, exploiting its rare Earth materials, dumping thousands of tons of plastic into its seas and oceans and our own effluent into our rivers and streams, for years.

    ‐--------------------

    On a thread about the climate emergency this seems like a good starting point for finding common ground. 

    I haven't read all of your posts in detail, so please forgive any questions that require repetition. If I recall correctly, you are not in favour of strong state intervention into people's lives. 

    I'm assuming you would say that the above(quoted actions)  are contributing to climate change. How would you suggest we go about changing these practices? 
    I'd be interested in @Redskin's reply, because I think I'm probably on the same page as him.

    This thread appears to be going around in circles with a clear division based on political grounds, becoming apparent.

    Everyone agrees that Climate change is  influenced by the actions of mankind.

    Everyone cares about the environment and wants clean air and oceans.

    In a nutshell, one side believes that rich people and their over consumption of beef, travel etc is the primary problem, solve that and we'll be fine.

    Whilst the other (my side) believes that overpopulation, coupled with making vast numbers of people poorer by imposing Green taxes, limiting drilling etc (thus making energy more expensive) actually exasperates the problem rather than improving it, ie shooting ourselves in the foot.

    Poorer people are more likely to pollute the planet because their primary focus is quite rightly on feeding themselves and their children, rather than having environmental concerns.

    Things like paying to take their rubbish to the tip, or having to pay large electric bills, are to be avoided, whilst installing solar panels or buying electric cars are out of the question for them.
    Cooking on an open fire costs next to nothing, burning garbage costs nothing, throwing effluent into the waterways costs nothing, etc etc

    An ever increasing population, coupled with a decreasing supply, increases costs, people get poorer, pollution gets worse, as does global warming.

    It's not either/or - I've already agreed that overpopulation is a big issue - but equally there's a lot that richer parts of the world can do to help.

    Rich people/countries have a much higher carbon footprint (per capita), yes we recycle more and are further down the road with renewables, but overall consumption, travel levels are way higher.  The challenge in the developing world is not rank poverty, but how such places cope with rising incomes and expectations - India being an example where basic infrastructure,  public transport has lagged the growth of the middle class
  • How much better it would be if the oligarchs put their wealth to good use to reduce the gap between rich & poor.

    Instead of putting a flag on Mars, they should be spending their money to reduce the drivers of Climate Change. Invest in green sustainable technology that will reduce bills for poorer people, not enrich themselves further by drilling for the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and pollute the air. Work on technology that will make solar panels, electric cars, heat pumps and insulation for homes cheaper so that everyone can afford them.

    I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but it will take something like a hurricane that flattens Mar a Lago for a change of direction to take place.
    As long as someone else has to solve the problem, nothing will ever get solved. 

    I wonder how many advocates for changes to other people’s lifestyles have needlessly appliances dishwashers, tumble dryers, heated steering wheels, or just cars? 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!