Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Marina Schwarz

6 Ways to Fight Climate Change

Recommended Posts

Here. All of these are doable but less than half are realistically doable. Unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than get involved in campaigning I tend to make a list each year of things I intend to do  which make a personal contribution. Buying a house currently and plans for that over the next 2-3 years

Stick another 200mm of insulation in the loft

Stick my 600w of solar panels and GT inverter on the garage roof

Put a New condensing boiler in and replace HW cylinder with a twin coil cylinder so it can accept heat from a solar water heater I intend to DIY install. Its no longer worth sticking PV in because there are no export payments. 

That should save about 10,000 kwh of gas and 500 kwh of electricity. 

Plant some trees and  a couple of grape vines and teach my son how to grow vegetables. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Here. All of these are doable but less than half are realistically doable. Unfortunately.

Most are just silly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Here. All of these are doable but less than half are realistically doable. Unfortunately.

As you point out much of the list isn't doable. I would go further and say that its all basically feel good sloganeering - populism. Sure we could start working four days a week but how many are going to do that when they have families to support? Sure there could be less emphasis on economic growth but then an election rolls around and the talk is about getting jobs for people here and now. The fishing stuff was intriguing as it showed the authors did not really know what they were talking about. Figures collected by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation show that close to half of all sea food comes from aquaculture (onshore lobster ponds, fish farms and so on) and that's the growing part of sea food production. Production from fishing levelled off sometime in the 1980s. So how come secure fish stocks are a problem? If you feel that way get the poor nations into aquaculture. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rodent said:

Most are just silly.  

"Climate change" is more driven be desertification than anything else  (at least, that Man could have any impact on.  Man cannot impact the solar sunspots and changes in the tilt axis of the planet, for example).   You can attack desertification by getting behind programs to divert some of the Congo River to the North to stem desertification of the Sahel.  That is cheap to do, low land and labor costs over there, and would have a huge impact.  Ditto with a branch of the Nile into the Qattara Depression.  

Or, you can join me in shipping Vermont cow manure and river dredge spoil to Iceland, to reforest that island.  The Vikings cut down the Icelandic forests some 800 years ago, turned the place into a pile of rock, and the Icelanders really would like their forests back.  Now, that is a worthwhile project! 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rodent said:

Most are just silly.  

Yeah, but they're nice! I can vouch that shorter work days are enormously beneficial but as @markslawson noted it's not so easy to just up and cut work days without unpleasant consequences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, markslawson said:

Figures collected by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation show that close to half of all sea food comes from aquaculture (onshore lobster ponds, fish farms and so on) and that's the growing part of sea food production. Production from fishing levelled off sometime in the 1980s. So how come secure fish stocks are a problem? If you feel that way get the poor nations into aquaculture. 

This is very interesting... because I've been seeing dramatic WWF billboards warning that humanity is close to extinction because several hundred million people's livelihood depends on the sea and the is being overfished (can a sea be overfished?)... WWF can't lie, can they? WWF and Greenpeace? They always tell the truth, right? 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Or, you can join me in shipping Vermont cow manure and river dredge spoil to Iceland, to reforest that island.  The Vikings cut down the Icelandic forests some 800 years ago, turned the place into a pile of rock, and the Icelanders really would like their forests back.  Now, that is a worthwhile project! 

You mean the little ice age killed the trees just as they did across Europe(leaving only conifers/birch), and then buried the island under massive amounts of glacial ice/snow year round  Now man did not help any, but that is what actually happened.  The ocean air did the rest.  https://en.vedur.is/about-imo/news/glaciers-in-iceland-continue-to-retreat    2000km^2 lost since end of ice age and Iceland was surrounded by pack ice , population dropped in half.  

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/the-little-ice-age-in-iceland/

Seems Encyclopedia Britannica has not been mind wiped yet.... https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age  " point to several cool episodes, lasting several decades each, when temperatures dropped 1 to 2 °C (1.8 to 3.6 °F) below the thousand-year averages for those areas. "

True, conservation is always a good thing, and protections should be in place, but lets not lose our minds eh? 

Go for it, plant those trees... How long they will grow?  Who knows when the next ocean oscillation happens freezing the planet and killing all of those trees. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marina Schwarz said:

This is very interesting... because I've been seeing dramatic WWF billboards warning that humanity is close to extinction because several hundred million people's livelihood depends on the sea and the is being overfished (can a sea be overfished?)... WWF can't lie, can they? WWF and Greenpeace? They always tell the truth, right? 

Greenpeace and WWF are not so much being loose with the truth as exaggerating. Over-fishing is a real problem - specific fisheries can indeed be destroyed by over-exploitation (Canadian Grand Banks in the 1980s is the best known example) - and this has to be combatted with strong government controls. Whether its getting worse or better is an interesting question but it would be difficult to say that its getting any worse from the fish production figures. However, I emphasise its a matter of governments stepping in and using the advice of experts to tailor their approach. Shrieking from WWF and Greenpeace isn't going to help.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

Sure we could start working four days a week but how many are going to do that when they have families to support?

There are actually companies that are very successful despite having shorter days; https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/19/new-zealand-experiment-finds-4-day-work-week-a-success.html. Sometimes people are so locked into just 1 way of doing things and there's no thinking out of the box as @Jan van Eck likes to note. 

Another way to look at this is on a family level - a few examples from my life

1) my wife only works part time. It started as way to give us a calmer family life, but now I realize it is good for the climate as well. We had to make some minor adjustments to our lifestyle, but granted nothing too major (and I appreciate that we are probably lucky in that regard). So, on a family level we work less. 

2) We actually holiday in Denmark rather than travel abroad. In honesty this is not for climate change reason but more practical ones such as teaching the kids our culture, proximity etc. I will not rule out that there are some places around the world that I would the kids to see when they get older, but it is quite achieveable to have a good holiday in your home country; at least here. 

3) we try to find local activities in the weekends and if possible tranport ourselfes there on bicycles. I even sometimes make an activity out of taking my youngest to the local "farm-store" on our bicycles (she is just starting to learn). 2 weeks ago we 2 times the same day because we could not carry enough on the bicycles. Again - the reason for this is not climate change or economics, but rather teaching my kids healthy habits.... it beat sitting inside and letting her play with an Ipad.   

Generally speaking I am more and more starting to believe that todays consumer culture could use a little moderation to the benefit of families and peoples happiness. Combatting climate change would just be a bonus.... Why will all the intelligent people on this forum not accept that?

 

Edited by Rasmus Jorgensen
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

Shrieking from WWF and Greenpeace isn't going to help.

probably not, unless of course they can influence public opinion to make the politicians instigate control measures... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the article, I first noticed the purpose of the article:

A. "This is despite the fact that many experts agree that to really tackle climate change, the focus needs to be on changing the capitalist system" 

B. "System change can sound scary, but as the current system drives social injustice"

C. "Of course, this is not an exhaustive list, but serves as a starting place to show how environmental issues can be addressed and at the same time we can create a fairer and more just society."

So, the purpose of the article is to effect "social justice" caused by their belief that it is caused by the capitalist system, which is what they really want to change. They hate freedom and don't really care about people or climate, just power.

Second, I noticed they start with a huge picture of a polar bear. This excellent science based video shows the complete lack of scientific basis for that Newsweek article. In fact it is anti-science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k9k21xPH9Y&t=1534s

1. "Less economic growth" - Most people don't think about this. This is the worry of the government people so they can get elected and retain their power.

2. "Higher Taxes and Subsidized Transport" - Actually, they mean subsidized politicians who dole out the money for votes to retain power.

3. "Work Less" - This is the goal of most people. It is fought against by the government because then people will be less dependent on the government. But, people are still succeeding as millions of people have started their own businesses on Ebay, Amazon, and other platforms. People who want to work less and live on less by renting rooms in their homes or giving people rides are fought tooth and nail by the government because that means less money for "permits" to work and less control they have over people.

4 & 5. "Think locally and learn about nature and look after it" - Working with nature promotes independence and self reliance, things that are anathema to government and social justice warriors. They make it illegal to have clothes lines in your back yard where you can dry your clothes in the sun. They put large roadblocks against keeping chickens or having edible plants in your front yard.

6. "Don't just rely on technology" - Less reliance on technology means less reliance on government, thus less control for government. You can have solar energy, but you still have to pay for the grid, often at a premium.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Generally speaking I am more and more starting to believe that todays consumer culture could use a little moderation to the benefit of families and peoples happiness. Combatting climate change would just be a bonus....

Definitely. Moderation is not just healthier, it's also less expensive and yep, it's good for nature. But once you get used to excess it's hard to quit, I think, especially if you get bombarded with encouragements to continue the excess because, well, companies need to sell their products, regardless of the industry. Which is why the "Think locally" advice doesn't really make sense. "Live locally" makes more sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel a Rodent Rant brewing... 

R2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, markslawson said:

As you point out much of the list isn't doable. I would go further and say that its all basically feel good sloganeering - populism. Sure we could start working four days a week but how many are going to do that when they have families to support? Sure there could be less emphasis on economic growth but then an election rolls around and the talk is about getting jobs for people here and now. The fishing stuff was intriguing as it showed the authors did not really know what they were talking about. Figures collected by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation show that close to half of all sea food comes from aquaculture (onshore lobster ponds, fish farms and so on) and that's the growing part of sea food production. Production from fishing levelled off sometime in the 1980s. So how come secure fish stocks are a problem? If you feel that way get the poor nations into aquaculture. 

What do think in most cases those fish are fed with? 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

There are actually companies that are very successful despite having shorter days; https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/19/new-zealand-experiment-finds-4-day-work-week-a-success.html. Sometimes people are so locked into just 1 way of doing things and there's no thinking out of the box as @Jan van Eck likes to note. 

Rasmus - I don't disagree with your post and I'm well aware of companies that have four day working weeks and the like, and I'm glad you found some compromise in your life, but it doesn't really change what I said. I gather from your post that you have a full time job and your wife works part time.. that's quite common. You go places on bicycles. That's good but again unless there is serious mass adoption of such practices and not just by the elite (that's you, although you may not realise it) then nothing has changed. For every one of you would there be 100 in Denmark who want to take their holidays in Germany and France and drive there? The problem has never been behaviour of the few but behaviour of the masses. However, it sounds like you have a nice lifestyle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NickW said:

What do think in most cases those fish are fed with? 

Oh sure, when the industry first started the feed given to farmed fish was something like 90 per cent other fish.. at least for salmon and is now on average down to about 30 per cent …  https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/11/10/everything-you-should-know-about-salmon-farming_a_21603450/

You will find the trend would be similar for other farmed species. Lobsters, for example, eat almost anything, not just other fish. in any case the low value fish caught in the wild to feed to high value fish would still show up in the production figures, and over-fishing remains a problem as I said..  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Four ways: Replace coal burning with natural gas. Replace diesel truck fuel with natural gas. Replace marine bunker fuel with LNG.

Replace locomotive fuel with LNG. 

All of the above will greatly reduce real pollution and save the transportation industry billions of dollars, much of which will be passed on to the end consumers. 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/05/03/u-s-record-natural-gas-production-spurs-export-talks-with-europe/

Edited by ronwagn
error
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Replace locomotive fuel with LNG. 

I don't think you have to go with LNG for locomotives.  Remember in the old days of steam that steam engine pulled a "tender" filled with the consumable fuel, coal, and the consumable water.  You could easily put a CNG tank car behind the locomotive, then yet another one behind that, or three, and hook them up to the engine.  Pulling an empty car is hardly a burden on the RR train. That would save the cost and hassle of going to a liquid state.  Also, remember that a gas-driven diesel still needs a small "starting charge" of diesel to fire it up.  That small charge ignites on the compression, and its fire ignites the gas charge.  Without that, the gas will not ignite on the top of the compression stroke  😊

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the dual fuel possibility. I actually prefer CNG but the industry seems to only consider LNG. I agree with your thought!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, NickW said:

What do think in most cases those fish are fed with? 🙄

Sewage or detrius from farm products for the most part(where it used to come from).  And cheap version: Fish as cheap protein food.   Chinese have been doing old style aqua culture for Centuries at least and more like millenia.  🙄  And their farms get fertilized at the same time. 

Just us folks here in the west are finally catching up to the Chinese.  And yes, China is also jumping into modern aqua culture with both feet depleting the oceans instead of using their old sustainable practices.  Just ask those off the west coast of Africa why there are few fish. 

https://chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9990-Chinese-aquaculture-is-driving-fisheries-to-the-brink

The last paragraph is key, but... they forget that fish is not a staple diet in Europe and the fisheries in N. Atlantic are massive compared to where China is usually fishing due to the much colder water. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wastral said:

Sewage or detrius from farm products for the most part(where it used to come from).  And cheap version: Fish as cheap protein food.   Chinese have been doing old style aqua culture for Centuries at least and more like millenia.  🙄  And their farms get fertilized at the same time. 

Just us folks here in the west are finally catching up to the Chinese.  And yes, China is also jumping into modern aqua culture with both feet depleting the oceans instead of using their old sustainable practices.  Just ask those off the west coast of Africa why there are few fish. 

https://chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9990-Chinese-aquaculture-is-driving-fisheries-to-the-brink

The last paragraph is key, but... they forget that fish is not a staple diet in Europe and the fisheries in N. Atlantic are massive compared to where China is usually fishing due to the much colder water. 

Which is why I never, ever buy Basa or Catfish. Carp tastes like shyte. 

Had this debate with my boss. Forgoing eating European Sea fish (we mostly eat Haddock, Cod, Sea Bass, mackerel, trout  and Salmon) won't save it because it will be caught and sold to the Chinese and Japanese any way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2019 at 2:57 AM, Okie said:

See tragedy of the commons:   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

So, the answer is yes.

As usual, the article from Wikipedia was comprehensive.  Thanks for sharing.  So much more our there to read and broaden our knowledge.

I read the "6 Ways to Fight Climate Change" that started this topic.  Following is an example of our unfortunate state of governance.

I will apply the "Tragedy of the Commons" with an example.  Philipines is mad at Canada right now for sending some garbage there.  It was supposed to be recycling.  Talk about an externality.  I was thinking Canada could pass a law preventing waste transfer outside each provinces borders.  That would force some local rethinking.  I will suggest that to my new premier, Jason Kenney.  (I am a dual citizen.)

Climate change or global warming won't be solved by governments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming

Population growth is one of the three main root causes of global warming.  Don't worry, we will run out of fish to feed everyone before we burn up. Trudeau has legalized pot to ease the pain of sunburn and his new carbon tax which may help government debt but not the economy unless we get our pipelines built.  If Canada doesn't ship oil, OPEC+ will be very happy to do so.  I don't hear them worrying about global warming.  A final Commons thought.  When Canadians get hungry, they will be able to convert pot greenhouses to grow food.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0