Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Myriad]

At a personal level what are you prepared to do or have already done?

Here are some ideas. If you haven't done them how do you justify your behaviour to yourself*? Perhaps writing down why you haven't made a change might highlight what you perceive the barrier(s) to be.

• Eat less or no meat.
• Learn to prepare food from ingredients.
• Fly less.
• Insulate your home better.
• Buy less stuff, particularly tat.
• Walk, cycle or use public transport more often rather than hopping in the car.

As an additional bonus, the above changes to behaviour will improve your wellbeing. Don't try to do them all at once!

*I don't care.

Careful! According to some posters here, that smacks of "sacrifice" and "austerity" that plays right into the hands of the real culprits and distracts from the real solutions.

You can learn the error of your ways starting on page 9 of this thread.

 

[arthwollipot]

Do you think that one person (or even ten people) eating less meat will offset the carbon emitted by the global airline industry?

Sure, doing all these things will make everybody better off, but it is not a solution to the problem.

 

[Myriad]

Do you think that one person (or even ten people) eating less meat will offset the carbon emitted by the global airline industry?

No.

Sure, doing all these things will make everybody better off, but it is not a solution to the problem.

I can't think of any way for me to solve the problem, so I settle for contributing less to the problem. I can't think of any way for people reading this thread to solve the problem either, so I advise them to contribute less to the problem.

Do I think that one person (or even ten people) not robbing the Liquor Locker (local store) will offset the total worldwide social and economic consequences of all crime? Is my decision not to rob the Liquor Locker or my suggesting other people shouldn't rob their local liquor stores only logically justifiable if I do think that?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Do you think that one person (or even ten people) eating less meat will offset the carbon emitted by the global airline industry?

Sure, doing all these things will make everybody better off, but it is not a solution to the problem.

I hope you misspoke there, because nobody in their right mind would suggest that one person eating less of anything could (by itself) offset the entire airline industry. But humans are not just individuals. What one person does, others will do too if they have a mind to. Individually our actions are insignificant, but collectively we can have a powerful impact (which is how we got into this mess).

Of course no one thing is a complete solution.

But flying less will certainly help reduce the carbon emitted by the 'global airline industry'. 80% of air transport emissions come from passengers, 20% from freight. So don't be concerned about small items shipped by air, but stay off airplanes yourself!

Air travel currently only accounts for ~2.5% of global emissions, however it is expected to grow rapidly in the future, as it was doing before the pandemic. We need to reverse that trend! Another factor to consider is that airplanes inject CO₂ into the atmosphere at a higher altitude where it has more effect. When all greenhouse impacts are included, aviation is currently responsible for at least 3.5% of warming. In the future it could reach 5% or more - if we don't cut back.

But would cutting back on meat be enough to offset that? Hell yeah! Provided enough of us do. Food production accounts for 35% of total global emissions, and meat is nearly 60% of that or ~20% of the total. If only 1 person in 10 stopped eating meat, or 1 in 5 halved their consumption (as I have) it could be enough to offset aviation emissions.

The real solution is to cut back everywhere we can - targeting those areas that are easiest and have the largest impact first. At 60% of food production emissions and very easy to cut back on, meat is a 'no-brainer'. Air transport is very hard to clean up, but not hard to cut back on. In both cases the benefits could easily outweigh the 'sacrifice'.

Most westerners eat far too much meat, and air transport is expensive. By cutting back on excessive consumption you save money both directly and in lower healthcare costs, as well as feeling better. So even if your individual impact on the environment is negligible you still come out on top. Why wouldn't you do it?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The last time the world met the wealthy countries gave a whopping $700 million to help those countries harmed by the effects of climate change. The estimate for the actual cost of those harms is ~$400 billion, so as long as climate change can stay on hold for 400-500 years were right on track!

Not sure I see the relevance. Paying for the costs of damaging climate change is not the same as taking steps to reduce our impact on the environment. And those steps are happening.

There were over 2400 lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry at COP28.

And despite that, COP28 still came out with a pledge to transition away from fossil fuels, an unprecedented policy statement.
https://unfccc.int/news/cop28-agreement-signals-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-fossil-fuel-era

We don't appear to be reducing our energy consumption or degradation of the environment.

Neither of those things are true.
The developing world's energy consumption is increasing- but that's because they are developing. The point is, they are starting from a very low baseline. Just getting a sub-Saharan country connected to an electicity supply will increase their consumption. However, it may surprise you to learn that Africa currently leads the world in terms of renewable energy consumption. Much of the increase is not reliant on fossil fuels, and therefore sustainable.
https://www.statista.com/chart/28673/renewable-energy-as-share-of-electricity-consumption/
In the devloped world, OTOH, energy consumption is plateauing: despite people having more devices, those devices are more energy-efficient, so consumption is generally rising by 1 or 2%. Plus, of course, there has been significant progress in use of renewables in these countries, too.
The number of cases of action to preserve our environment in recent years is large. Marine reserves, a 50% reduction in deforestation in the Amazon, tree-planting initiatives, taking petrol cars off the roads: there is a lot to be positive about.

Nature is pointing a loaded gun at the head of humanity with its finger twitching on the trigger and there are people running fossil fuel power stations to "mine" bitcoins.
We are going to annihilate ourselves because we're just "clever" monkeys whose best idea for a measure of human flourishing is increasing GDP.

That's some people, not all people. If you only focus on the negative, that's all you'll see.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Is it just coincidence that there is a reasonably strong correlation between what appears to be good for human wellbeing (e.g., Blue Zones) and how our lifestyles are going to have to change if we want to live within the limits of our planet's resources?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Is it just coincidence that there is a reasonably strong correlation between what appears to be good for human wellbeing (e.g., Blue Zones) and how our lifestyles are going to have to change if we want to live within the limits of our planet's resources?

Health behaviors are contagious, Buettner said. Deleterious behaviors (e.g., obesity, smoking, excessive drinking, loneliness, unhappiness) are also contagious...

Participants also self-reported a collective weight loss of 7,280 pounds. The City of Albert Lea independently reported a 40 percent drop in health care costs for city workers...

Although the Blue Zones Project may not necessarily be working in the poorest neighborhoods, the policy changes made (e.g., de-normalizing tobacco, making healthy foods more accessible and affordable) should benefit all of the communities in a city.

It's not rocket science. Everybody knows that obesity, drinking and smoking are bad. Yet westerners are becoming more obese and drinking more. In the US the obesity rate increased from 30.5% to 41.9% in the last 20 years, with severe obesity increasing from 4.7% to 9.2%. Consumption of spirits increased by 70% and is accelerating. Smoking dropped from just under 30% of the population to just under 20% - still far too high. And we aren't doing much to avoid exposure to fine particulate vehicle emissions either.

Every day we are bombarded with adverts encouraging us to eat and drink more. Trucks and large SUVS are promoted far more than lower emission vehicles, and everything is upsizing. Our economies are dependent on over-consumption, which is creating enormous amounts of waste that pollutes the environment and our own bodies. It's literally killing us, yet suggest that people change to a healthy diet and they act like you're trying to starve them to death.

 

[macdoc]

yet suggest that people change to a healthy diet and they act like you're trying to starve them to death.

It ain't that simple. Moral suasion isn't gonna change my set point but Ozempic has.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ozempic-weight-loss-diet-drug-moral-panic.html

https://www.thecut.com/article/weig...435.519316227.1707040496-426077143.1707040496
It actually is rocket science ...or the bio equivalent.,,,,suggest you look a little deeper.

Recent studies have revealed that genetics can account for 40-70% of obesity. Over 50 genes, including the fat mass and obesity-associated gene (FTO), have been singled out as strongly linked to obesity. These genes exert influence over various factors, such as: Levels of hunger.

......

SUVs are in demand in some nations and a larger platform for a battery module is no bad thing adding range and space.
Aging population want a higher vehicle...one reason small SUVs are a big market.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It ain't that simple. Moral suasion isn't gonna change my set point but Ozempic has.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/ozempic-weight-loss-diet-drug-moral-panic.html

https://www.thecut.com/article/weig...435.519316227.1707040496-426077143.1707040496
It actually is rocket science ...or the bio equivalent.,,,,suggest you look a little deeper.

If genetics accounts for 40-70% of obesity, how is it that obestiy is rising? Surely, if the main cause was genetic, we would already have the levels of obesity we are seeing now, and would always have had them.
I think the reasons are far more about the ready and cheap availability of junk food, plus the insidious advertising campaigns aiming at getting children hooked on that rubbish, plus a disinclination to exercise.
By the way, those two articles are paywalled.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

If genetics accounts for 40-70% of obesity, how is it that obestiy is rising? Surely, if the main cause was genetic, we would already have the levels of obesity we are seeing now, and would always have had them.
I think the reasons are far more about the ready and cheap availability of junk food, plus the insidious advertising campaigns aiming at getting children hooked on that rubbish, plus a disinclination to exercise.
By the way, those two articles are paywalled.

If everyone smoked then lung cancer would be genetic.

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about-us/news-and-views/ozempic-and-weight-loss-facts-behind-headlines

Ozempic and weight loss

People with type 2 diabetes who use Ozempic can lose weight while using the medication, which happens partly due to its effect on:

Reducing your appetite so you eat less

Slowing down the movement of food in your gut meaning you stay full for longer.

I suspect that unless you change your food environment then any weight loss from Ozempic will be reversed.

ETA: Assuming you are not planning on staying on it for the rest of your life.

 

[macdoc]

Why not argue with the people that study this rather than meaningless speculation. It IS rocket science.

It is generally assumed people will stay on Ozempic and the ilk for the rest of their lives.

There is no question that readily available snacks, highly processed food etc is an easy path WHEN YOU ARE GENETICALLY PRONE to obesity. Post WWII, where austerity and restricted diet was the norm during WWII...high energy, highly processed food developed to feed soldiers.

Add in a more sedentary lifestyle and workplace so the conditions are set but the underlying issue, moving the set point where your body says "I'm full" did not change. Humans will eat until satiated ....kids in particular.

Ozempic does move the set point. Now I'll often stop half way through a meal I'm enjoying....."I'm full"...and push the plate away. Desert?? nah I'm full.....etc etc It's like a portcullis drops....

Even the mossback Weight Watchers understands the underlying issue ....diet/exercise rarely works long because of the set point.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/ozem...-on-them/e792a7d5-a7cb-42a4-8c12-65da6100ed7d

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why not argue with the people that study this rather than meaningless speculation. It IS rocket science.

It is generally assumed people will stay on Ozempic and the ilk for the rest of their lives.

There is no question that readily available snacks, highly processed food etc is an easy path WHEN YOU ARE GENETICALLY PRONE to obesity. Post WWII, where austerity and restricted diet was the norm during WWII...high energy, highly processed food developed to feed soldiers.

Add in a more sedentary lifestyle and workplace so the conditions are set but the underlying issue, moving the set point where your body says "I'm full" did not change. Humans will eat until satiated ....kids in particular.

Ozempic does move the set point. Now I'll often stop half way through a meal I'm enjoying....."I'm full"...and push the plate away. Desert?? nah I'm full.....etc etc It's like a portcullis drops....

Even the mossback Weight Watchers understands the underlying issue ....diet/exercise rarely works long because of the set point.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/ozem...-on-them/e792a7d5-a7cb-42a4-8c12-65da6100ed7d

Actually, most "food" today is formulated to make you over consume it. E.g., Ultra-Processed bread is soft and can be consumed much faster than bread made from traditional ingredients. If you can eat food faster then you tend to eat more of it.

If you make your own food (or can find shops that sell food) with ingredients that you and I would recognise, then you will naturally eat less of it. In the USA in particular everything seems to have HFCS added to it, even bread. It tastes weird, but Americans have been conditioned to think that's what bread tastes like.

The other great lies we have been sold are that obesity is genetic, due to a lack of willpower and our sedentary lifestyles. The reality is it mostly the result of the formulations of the "food" products marketed to us.

I would suggest everyone reads "Ultra-Processed People: Why Do We All Eat Stuff That Isn’t Food … and Why Can’t We Stop?" by Chris van Tulleken

 

[icerat]

Do you think that one person (or even ten people) eating less meat will offset the carbon emitted by the global airline industry?

Do you think that one person (or even ten people) flying less will offset the carbon emitted by the entire meat industry?

A silly formulation, arthwollipot, you're better than that.

 

[arthwollipot]

Do you think that one person (or even ten people) flying less will offset the carbon emitted by the entire meat industry?

A silly formulation, arthwollipot, you're better than that.

Ivor was arguing that anybody who isn't practicing personal austerity is a hypocrite. My counterargument is that austerity on an individual basis has very close to zero impact when compared to the industries driving global climate change. Including transport, agriculture, energy and infrastructure.

So yes, practice personal austerity if it makes you feel better, but don't think that by doing so you are affecting the global climate in any meaningful way. Because individual emissions aren't the problem.

 

[icerat]

Ivor was arguing that anybody who isn't practicing personal austerity is a hypocrite. My counterargument is that austerity on an individual basis has very close to zero impact when compared to the industries driving global climate change. Including transport, agriculture, energy and infrastructure.

So yes, practice personal austerity if it makes you feel better, but don't think that by doing so you are affecting the global climate in any meaningful way. Because individual emissions aren't the problem.

The vast majority of emissions in the world - including from those industries you name - are ultimately driven by consumer demand for something. Consumers - ie individuals - are thus ultimately the ones who have the most power. You don't get a million consumers changing behaviour unless you first get one.

The argument that any individual change makes little difference is essentially a little Eichmann argument and usually merely an excuse to continue destructive behaviour.

 

[arthwollipot]

The vast majority of emissions in the world - including from those industries you name - are ultimately driven by consumer demand for something. Consumers - ie individuals - are thus ultimately the ones who have the most power. You don't get a million consumers changing behaviour unless you first get one.

The argument that any individual change makes little difference is essentially a little Eichmann argument and usually merely an excuse to continue destructive behaviour.

It can be, certainly. But it appeared to me that Ivor was saying that when everybody stops consuming, the problem will go away. And that just is not true.

Yes, personal austerity on an individual level is a good idea. It has benefits. But it's not going to save the world.

 

[icerat]

It can be, certainly. But it appeared to me that Ivor was saying that when everybody stops consuming, the problem will go away. And that just is not true.

If everyone stops consuming, will all be dead, so yup, it will go away.

I did not, however read him as saying if everyone stopped consuming meat the problem would go away.

Yes, personal austerity on an individual level is a good idea. It has benefits. But it's not going to save the world.

Neither would stopping every plane flight, or closing every coal plant, or switching every car to an EV charged with renewables - which is why your comment was silly. As has been pointed out *no one thing* - short of a massive technological breakthrough in carbon removal - is going to save us.

For individuals though, there are many things we can do that can contribute. And if enough of us do it, then it will make a difference and slow the damage, so it at least gives us more time.

And the data is pretty clear that the single biggest thing an individual can do is to cut back on meat consumption. It's fascinating though, that when people have tried to ask about this at things like COP28, they get shut down very quickly. The "meat lobby" incredibly appears to be even more powerful than "big oil".

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It can be, certainly. But it appeared to me that Ivor was saying that when everybody stops consuming, the problem will go away. And that just is not true.

I'm pretty sure it will actually - only problem is that word 'when'.

The harsh reality is that most people won't do anything it reaches crisis point, by which time things will be in a hell of a mess.

 

[icerat]

I'm pretty sure it will actually - only problem is that word 'when'.

The harsh reality is that most people won't do anything it reaches crisis point, by which time things will be in a hell of a mess.

Yes, this is one of the biggest problems. What's happening the climate now (sulphur issues aside) is the result of CO2 we pumped into the air many years and decades ago. We're yet to see the impact of much of what we've released this century.

And we release more every day, at an increasing rate.

 

[arthwollipot]

For individuals though, there are many things we can do that can contribute. And if enough of us do it, then it will make a difference and slow the damage, so it at least gives us more time.

But that's the thing. Not only does everyone have to contribute (which as Roger points out is a problem), even if everyone does, the measurable difference will be tiny compared to the big industrial polluters. Not nothing, sure, but tiny.

Unless the oil and gas industry can be shut down, unless we can find new ways of producing steel and concrete (which our civilisation absolutely depends upon) that don't dump billions of tons of CO2, unless we can develop new unpolluting ways of sustaining the global travel and distribution industries that we have become accustomed to, the problem will not go away.

Do your personal bit, absolutely. It will make you feel better. But it won't solve the problem.