Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
18-03-2020, 08:14   #1
minikin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,515
Is this what action on climate change looks like?

Drastically reduced economic output.
People working from home rather than commuting.
Massive reduction in air traffic.
Reduction in discretionary spending / travel.

Are we seeing a glimpse of what life would be like, if we actually took the steps to fight climate change that are probably required?

Could we do it long term?
minikin is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
18-03-2020, 08:16   #2
Wanderer78
Registered User
 
Wanderer78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 15,010
Or are we looking at what might happen if we don't act now, I. E. Potential economic collapse?
Wanderer78 is online now  
Thanks from:
18-03-2020, 08:44   #3
minikin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,515
Perhaps a bit of a wake up call regarding the environment?

Money is of little relevance if the air we breath is potentially damaging us (had eyes opened by the ted talk that pointed out seven million pre-mature deaths per annum caused by air pollution)
minikin is offline  
Thanks from:
18-03-2020, 08:49   #4
Wanderer78
Registered User
 
Wanderer78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 15,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by minikin View Post
Perhaps a bit of a wake up call regarding the environment?

Money is of little relevance if the air we breath is potentially damaging us (had eyes opened by the ted talk that pointed out seven million pre-mature deaths per annum caused by air pollution)
Unfortunately a lot of this does come down to money, we know how to make the stuff, and virtually endless amounts of it, we just don't know how to spread it around more evenly, this is gonna be the really hard bit. people need to eat, cloth themselves, a roof over their head etc etc, this is all done with money
Wanderer78 is online now  
Thanks from:
18-03-2020, 08:59   #5
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by minikin View Post
Drastically reduced economic output.
People working from home rather than commuting.
Massive reduction in air traffic.
Reduction in discretionary spending / travel.

Are we seeing a glimpse of what life would be like, if we actually took the steps to fight climate change that are probably required?

Could we do it long term?
No, no, no. It's true that some of the steps taken to fight Covid-19 have beneficial environmental outcomes - the waters in Venice haven't been this clean in decades - but the environmental benefit is incidental, and many of the adverse economic and social consequences are in no way related to environmental benefits, and wouldn't arise from a programme targetted on environmental concerns.

Plus, much of the impact of the Covid-19 measures arises from the fact that they have to be taken now, immediately, with no planning or preparation. This wouldn't be a feature of a programme to reorient social or economic life in a more environmentally sustainable way.
Peregrinus is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
18-03-2020, 09:10   #6
minikin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer78 View Post
Unfortunately a lot of this does come down to money, we know how to make the stuff, and virtually endless amounts of it, we just don't know how to spread it around more evenly, this is gonna be the really hard bit. people need to eat, cloth themselves, a roof over their head etc etc, this is all done with money
I mean on an individual basis - the euro in our wallets mean very little if we have an eco-system or environment that's detrimental to human/animal existence.

I was guilty in the past of seeing the environment as being a problem for foreigners... sea level rise / forest fires etc... doesn't affect us... sure we live in lovely green Ireland. In the past few years I've seen a serious cluster in neurological (MS, MND, etc) and carcinogenic conditions (including very premature deaths) in a small community situated right beside a busy junction (lots of queuing at peak hours) on the M50. Opened my eyes to the impact of what I can only assume is pollution (ICE particulates).
minikin is offline  
Thanks from:
18-03-2020, 09:12   #7
minikin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
No, no, no. It's true that some of the steps taken to fight Covid-19 have beneficial environmental outcomes - the waters in Venice haven't been this clean in decades - but the environmental benefit is incidental, and many of the adverse economic and social consequences are in no way related to environmental benefits, and wouldn't arise from a programme targetted on environmental concerns.

Plus, much of the impact of the Covid-19 measures arises from the fact that they have to be taken now, immediately, with no planning or preparation. This wouldn't be a feature of a programme to reorient social or economic life in a more environmentally sustainable way.
I wasn't suggesting that an improved climate is anything more than incidental.
I asked if we as a society could apply the same measures in order to fight climate change.
Isn't reversing climate damage (if that is possible) as existential, and therefore urgent, a project as the current viral outbreak?

I'm not a member of Extinction Rebellion or an anti-capitalist or anything like that (small business owner) - just throwing some thoughts out there.

Last edited by minikin; 18-03-2020 at 09:18.
minikin is offline  
(2) thanks from:
18-03-2020, 09:18   #8
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19,046
Yes, it is, but it can probably be done in a more planned and prepared fashion, and through measures that have more long-term sustainability.
Peregrinus is offline  
(2) thanks from:
18-03-2020, 09:29   #9
minikin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Yes, it is, but it can probably be done in a more planned and prepared fashion, and through measures that have more long-term sustainability.
Can we sustainably continue the previous level of industrial and societal output and reverse the environmental situation though?
I would have thought it's like obesity: we can't continue with the level of over-consumption and hope for a magical cure that'll reverse centuries of abuse... without the inconvenience of actually having to change our ways or drastically reduce the amount we consume.

I live in a town that the council wants to throw another 1,000 affordable/social housing units into. I suggested to a green councillor: could you request that a grant of planning permission be conditional on all units being passive homes... "well that's our party policy going forward, but the council wouldn't pay... so no point in asking".

If the state won't take the lead what chance have we of de-carbonising if we rely on complicated temporary grant schemes for the wealthy?
Have we de-motivated green party candidates, to the point of stepping back from their principles, because they know they won't get elected if their policies are a threat to the euro in our pocket? [Keep lecturing me about what to eat and I'll stop inviting you round to dinner?]

Last edited by minikin; 18-03-2020 at 09:42.
minikin is offline  
Advertisement
18-03-2020, 09:33   #10
Granadino
Registered User
 
Granadino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 357
Imagine if society decided that for 1 month, or 2 months of the year, everybody would work from home, airlines would cut flights, or ground them for a month, only allow people to drive for essential things like shopping etc. Give the planet a breather....

Probably would never happen, but with some planning, who is to say it wouldn't or couldn't though, you'll never get airlines wanting to cut down on flights...

But if people knew well in advance "ok, in November, I'll only be able to go to the UK or Europe by ferry (or not at all)" then maybe the shock might not be so bad.
We see that people rarely organise work meetings, or work travel in August as most people would be on holidays, so just try and bring that mindset into other months of the year.
Granadino is offline  
Thanks from:
18-03-2020, 09:55   #11
minikin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granadino View Post
Imagine if society decided that for 1 month, or 2 months of the year, everybody would work from home, airlines would cut flights, or ground them for a month, only allow people to drive for essential things like shopping etc. Give the planet a breather....

Probably would never happen, but with some planning, who is to say it wouldn't or couldn't though, you'll never get airlines wanting to cut down on flights...

But if people knew well in advance "ok, in November, I'll only be able to go to the UK or Europe by ferry (or not at all)" then maybe the shock might not be so bad.
We see that people rarely organise work meetings, or work travel in August as most people would be on holidays, so just try and bring that mindset into other months of the year.
Indeed, or the last week of every month... it becomes such a regular thing that we just adapt to it.

I would think we have to forget about recreational air travel, re-localise all economies in terms of production, a major overhaul... not sure if that's possible.
minikin is offline  
Thanks from:
18-03-2020, 10:03   #12
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19,046
I don't want to be negative, but all you are doing is shifting travel around so that it takes place in the weeks/months where not prohibited, but adding the extra cost of maintaining idle ships, trains, planes etc (and paying idle workers) for the times that it is banned. This puts up costs without, I think, significantly reducing carbon outputs.

We need to be much more radical than this; the issue is not the timing of travel, but the need or desire to do so much travel. We need changed attitudes, and changed systems and structures, so that people need or want to undertake less travel. Simply forbidding them from travelling at particular times is not going to do much to get this.
Peregrinus is offline  
Thanks from:
18-03-2020, 10:22   #13
minikin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
I don't want to be negative, but all you are doing is shifting travel around so that it takes place in the weeks/months where not prohibited, but adding the extra cost of maintaining idle ships, trains, planes etc (and paying idle workers) for the times that it is banned. This puts up costs without, I think, significantly reducing carbon outputs.

We need to be much more radical than this; the issue is not the timing of travel, but the need or desire to do so much travel. We need changed attitudes, and changed systems and structures, so that people need or want to undertake less travel. Simply forbidding them from travelling at particular times is not going to do much to get this.
Maybe so, though I would argue that implementing a regular limitation helps re-educate people into thinking before consuming. Up to now there have been no boundaries at all... I don't believe taxation adjusts behaviour. They've made it more expensive to drive inefficient vehicles... sure throw a credit union loan at the annual tax, they've made it expensive to smoke... sure throw it on the credit card... we see the financial cost as something that can be finessed away = no lesson learned, no change in behaviour.

We're doing the same with the cost of environmental ruin, just like the national debt - sure future generations will look after it.
minikin is offline  
18-03-2020, 10:30   #14
Granadino
Registered User
 
Granadino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Simply forbidding them from travelling at particular times is not going to do much to get this.
I suppose, but as we have seen currently with the lack of personal responsibility around staying at home, or not being in groups , maybe initially people should be forbidden, then relax the rules. I don't know...
Granadino is offline  
18-03-2020, 10:39   #15
magicbastarder
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 29,512
taking it away slightly from the immediate context, but i'd be curious to hear how much air travel is done by people travelling to sporting events (i know people who would be in the UK several times a year at matches) or people visiting their own foreign properties.
magicbastarder is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet