Is this what action on climate change looks like?

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)

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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?]

Granadino wrote: »

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.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.