Forums > Social Discussion > flying and enviro-hippies
Login/Join to Participategeek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
so, i was just reading the rabbit hole thread, and was feeling very pleased that all my friends were in more or less the same place, having a great time, when suddenly i became despondent, and realised that they had not only flown there, but were flying all over the place to see a different lovely beach, etcetc.
now, my apologies to those involved in that particular thread, I'm only using it as an example because of its currency, not picking on you. i could point the finger at myself for flyng to, and within australia last year. or to hundreds of other examples.
how can we expect people to to be environmentally responsible if we are not? there is only so long that you can say 'well, i don't do it much, so it's ok'.
I feel like a killjoy, telling people what not to do, but can't reconcile my belief that if we don't change our ways we won't have a beautiful earth to continue visiting
for those who agree with me, feel free to join me in pledging to make no flights, or reduced flights at https://www.flightpledge.org.uk/
i will be recommending alternative means of transport to anyone who is coming to uber, too
i would end my rant here, but i'm interested in HOP flying figures.... so please pander to my whim, and fill in this poll:
so, i was just reading the rabbit hole thread, and was feeling very pleased that all my friends were in more or less the same place, having a great time, when suddenly i became despondent, and realised that they had not only flown there, but were flying all over the place to see a different lovely beach, etcetc.
now, my apologies to those involved in that particular thread, I'm only using it as an example because of its currency, not picking on you. i could point the finger at myself for flyng to, and within australia last year. or to hundreds of other examples.
how can we expect people to to be environmentally responsible if we are not? there is only so long that you can say 'well, i don't do it much, so it's ok'.
I feel like a killjoy, telling people what not to do, but can't reconcile my belief that if we don't change our ways we won't have a beautiful earth to continue visiting
for those who agree with me, feel free to join me in pledging to make no flights, or reduced flights at https://www.flightpledge.org.uk/
i will be recommending alternative means of transport to anyone who is coming to uber, too
i would end my rant here, but i'm interested in HOP flying figures.... so please pander to my whim, and fill in this poll:
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
thus showing that planes are the least fuel efficient mode of transport. and this from a government that appears to support the expansion of air travel.
as far as planes causing more damage being speculation, the majority of reports and studies indicate that it is not. ALL reports i have found that don't link it directly to extra damage are funded by the aviation industry
. so i reckon those figures hold(with the extra division).
EDITED_BY: bluecat (1169648423)
Written by:
according to the UK department for Transport in 2005
UK Public transport Transport mode / Fuel consumption (Miles per gallon per passenger)
Buses (national) / 98
Passenger rail (diesel) / 182
Cars/ 2.1 - 220 (2.1 for single driver bugatti veyron, 220 for 5 people in a toyota prius)
Air short haul / 40
Air long haul / 66
then divide the planes by about 3 so as to take into account the additional greenhouse effect they cause
Air Short Haul / 13
Air Long Haul / 22
The factor of three (2.7 for the less mathematically inept) is the multiplier recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change to calculate the total greenhouse effect caused by flying rather than purely the C02 emissions.
There have already been a couple of links from this thread to papers explaining why this is necessary... here's another
IPCC 2001 report - aviation and the global atmosphere
thus showing that planes are the least fuel efficient mode of transport. and this from a government that appears to support the expansion of air travel.
as far as planes causing more damage being speculation, the majority of reports and studies indicate that it is not. ALL reports i have found that don't link it directly to extra damage are funded by the aviation industry
. so i reckon those figures hold(with the extra division).EDITED_BY: bluecat (1169648423)
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
yes, i drive.
i have far below average mileage(i last filled up my tank in early december), and cycle or take public transport where possible. 90% at least of my journeys are with others in the car, improving my miles per gallon per passenger to something like 100-120, based on the table given on page 4 on this thread, and by working back over my miles in the past year
why do you ask?
yes, i drive.
i have far below average mileage(i last filled up my tank in early december), and cycle or take public transport where possible. 90% at least of my journeys are with others in the car, improving my miles per gallon per passenger to something like 100-120, based on the table given on page 4 on this thread, and by working back over my miles in the past year
why do you ask?
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
BRONZE Member
member
29 posts
Location: United Kingdom
member
29 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
Modern aircraft achieve fuel efficiencies of 3.5 litres per 100 passenger km
that would make them a hell of alot more efficient than ur data says
https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/fuel_efficiency.htm
(this is the page i got this from)
Modern aircraft achieve fuel efficiencies of 3.5 litres per 100 passenger km
that would make them a hell of alot more efficient than ur data says
https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/fuel_efficiency.htm
(this is the page i got this from)
BRONZE Member
member
29 posts
Location: United Kingdom
member
29 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
cars manage approx 0.2%fuel economy planes arnt allowed to fly with less than 60%
cars manage approx 0.2%fuel economy planes arnt allowed to fly with less than 60%
BRONZE Member
member
29 posts
Location: United Kingdom
member
29 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
and i cant back that up here cos it wont let me link from power point presentations
i supose i could give the actual jurnal if wanted by anyone
EDITED_BY: flying_on_fire (1169652108)
and i cant back that up here cos it wont let me link from power point presentations
i supose i could give the actual jurnal if wanted by anyone
EDITED_BY: flying_on_fire (1169652108)
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
please
please
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
3.5 litres per 100 passenger kilometres = 67 miles per gallon per passenger. hardly that different to 66, wouldn't you say?
as for fuel economy? what exactly do you mean by that phrase that is different to 'amount of fuel burned per passenger per mile'??
just copy and paste from the powerpoint - i really want to see the figures...
and personally, i'm more inclined to beleive the department of transport, than an unregulated(no sign of a regulating body, or indeed of the background studies that provided the information on that website) non-independent industry body that aims for 2050 in many of its goals, as if by then nothing will have changed between now and then in terms of climate.
incidentally(the starred bits are the flagship facts from the website, with no sources given):
* New aircraft are 70% more fuel efficient than 40 years ago and 20% better than 10 years ago.
great an excellent step.
* The industry is aiming for a further 50% fuel efficiency improvement by 2020.
also great. now if only they could just hurry it up a little....
* Modern aircraft achieve fuel efficiencies of 3.5 litres per 100 passenger km.
see above
* The A380 and B787 are aiming for 3 litres per 100 passenger km – better than a compact car!
how is this a 50% improvement on 3.5litres???? it also assumes that comapct cars will only ever have 1 person in them. the average compact car does ~38mpg(urban) 55mpg motorway. as soon a second person gets in that car its more efficient than the plane. the average number of people per car journey (uk) is 1.6. that takes the miles per passenger per gallon totals to 61/88.-slightly below for urban travel, but well above for long distance travel.
Air MPGs also fail to take into account the fuel costs of travelling to and from airports, and for the thousands and thousands of support vehicles. with these included in the totals, i am sure the figures would be way lower.
ah well...
3.5 litres per 100 passenger kilometres = 67 miles per gallon per passenger. hardly that different to 66, wouldn't you say?
as for fuel economy? what exactly do you mean by that phrase that is different to 'amount of fuel burned per passenger per mile'??
just copy and paste from the powerpoint - i really want to see the figures...
and personally, i'm more inclined to beleive the department of transport, than an unregulated(no sign of a regulating body, or indeed of the background studies that provided the information on that website) non-independent industry body that aims for 2050 in many of its goals, as if by then nothing will have changed between now and then in terms of climate.
incidentally(the starred bits are the flagship facts from the website, with no sources given):
* New aircraft are 70% more fuel efficient than 40 years ago and 20% better than 10 years ago.
great
an excellent step.* The industry is aiming for a further 50% fuel efficiency improvement by 2020.
also great. now if only they could just hurry it up a little....
* Modern aircraft achieve fuel efficiencies of 3.5 litres per 100 passenger km.
see above
* The A380 and B787 are aiming for 3 litres per 100 passenger km – better than a compact car!
how is this a 50% improvement on 3.5litres???? it also assumes that comapct cars will only ever have 1 person in them. the average compact car does ~38mpg(urban) 55mpg motorway. as soon a second person gets in that car its more efficient than the plane. the average number of people per car journey (uk) is 1.6. that takes the miles per passenger per gallon totals to 61/88.-slightly below for urban travel, but well above for long distance travel.
Air MPGs also fail to take into account the fuel costs of travelling to and from airports, and for the thousands and thousands of support vehicles. with these included in the totals, i am sure the figures would be way lower.
ah well...
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
SILVER Member
enthusiast
394 posts
Location: in the clouds..., United Kingdom
enthusiast
394 posts
Location: in the clouds..., United Kingdom
Posted:
So I was watching one of those "how they do (insert strangely interesting subject here)" documentaries, and they showed you how huge container ships travel around the world delivering/ picking up various things such as food/ cosmetics/ clothes/ computers/ etc... Now I can't remember what the figures for the petrol comsumption of one of those things were per km, but I do remember that they were absoloutely astoundingly high! So, apart from all this air travel, lets consider how much fuel is used to get us our lovely oranges from israel, jumpers make in Pakistan, bananas from the Ivory Coast - man that's a huge carbon load!
So I was watching one of those "how they do (insert strangely interesting subject here)" documentaries, and they showed you how huge container ships travel around the world delivering/ picking up various things such as food/ cosmetics/ clothes/ computers/ etc... Now I can't remember what the figures for the petrol comsumption of one of those things were per km, but I do remember that they were absoloutely astoundingly high! So, apart from all this air travel, lets consider how much fuel is used to get us our lovely oranges from israel, jumpers make in Pakistan, bananas from the Ivory Coast - man that's a huge carbon load!
addict
614 posts
614 posts
Posted:
flying on fire,you dont own an airline do ya?
flying on fire,you dont own an airline do ya?
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
One thing missing from today's discussion on MPG/passenger is the RF ( radiative forcing ) factor used to calculate the emissions from planes and their true contribution to global warming. I took that factor into account when I equated a flight to Asia as being equivalent to 6 years of driving, however I can't say that I have a firm grasp on the RF concept, other than simply barfing up the explanation given on the IPCC report.
One thing missing from today's discussion on MPG/passenger is the RF ( radiative forcing ) factor used to calculate the emissions from planes and their true contribution to global warming. I took that factor into account when I equated a flight to Asia as being equivalent to 6 years of driving, however I can't say that I have a firm grasp on the RF concept, other than simply barfing up the explanation given on the IPCC report.
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
mmhuh. i'm very pleased to have an excellent local farmers market. i've always been one to prefer seasonal vegetables, but i do miss the taste of pineapples and mangos now that i've gone a bit militant about it....
we'll have to actually see each other before i abandon the south coast, miss spanner!!!!!
mmhuh. i'm very pleased to have an excellent local farmers market. i've always been one to prefer seasonal vegetables, but i do miss the taste of pineapples and mangos now that i've gone a bit militant about it....
we'll have to actually see each other before i abandon the south coast, miss spanner!!!!!
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
BRONZE Member
Sitting down facing forward . . .
2,387 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Sitting down facing forward . . .
2,387 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
Man this thread is moving fast! A couple of pages ago :
We know, and that's part of what we're working on. Fair cop!
I have 3 different prongs in mind for the attack on that item, but you're gonna have to wait to see any results. I hate making well intentioned statements that don't turn out due to some technicality.
George
Man this thread is moving fast! A couple of pages ago :
Written by: FireTom
And how about HoP shipping airfreight?
Yet: Would you - as their customer - wait 3 weeks... wait... errm 3 MONTHS for your firestuff?
We know, and that's part of what we're working on. Fair cop!
I have 3 different prongs in mind for the attack on that item, but you're gonna have to wait to see any results. I hate making well intentioned statements that don't turn out due to some technicality.
George
Written by: Doc Lightning talking about Marmite in Kichi's Intro thread
I have several large jars of the stuff. I actually like it... a little. And don't tell anyone I admitted to it. 
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
I dont think I've missed your point Blue. I'm aware of how damaging air travel is, and Kate and I have a real problem with making decisions about travel - we absolutely hate using air travel, but our hands are nicely tied in terms of getting out of Oz - at least until we decide to change careers or take years off work. Now for you sacrificing air travel isnt so hard - you can still visit almost anywhere you want to, and visit almost all of your friends, but for us, it means never seeing a large number of beautiful people we've met and known over our years of bimbling around OS, and missing out on a LOT of conventions.
given all this, we still probly will give up airtravel, because even tho we've planted loads of trees on our property and are active in community groups in our area responsible for revegitation and preservation - and eat locally produced..etc.etc...airtravel is still bad m'kay
I guess I just saw it as another 'you dont care about the environment you bloody hippy-crite' thread (and that tone came not just from you either blue), when in fact we do care.
No love lost dude
So I guess we wont be seeing you for another uberOz?
Josh
I dont think I've missed your point Blue. I'm aware of how damaging air travel is, and Kate and I have a real problem with making decisions about travel - we absolutely hate using air travel, but our hands are nicely tied in terms of getting out of Oz - at least until we decide to change careers or take years off work. Now for you sacrificing air travel isnt so hard - you can still visit almost anywhere you want to, and visit almost all of your friends, but for us, it means never seeing a large number of beautiful people we've met and known over our years of bimbling around OS, and missing out on a LOT of conventions.
given all this, we still probly will give up airtravel, because even tho we've planted loads of trees on our property and are active in community groups in our area responsible for revegitation and preservation - and eat locally produced..etc.etc...airtravel is still bad m'kay
I guess I just saw it as another 'you dont care about the environment you bloody hippy-crite' thread (and that tone came not just from you either blue), when in fact we do care.
No love lost dude
So I guess we wont be seeing you for another uberOz?
Josh
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
i sincerely don't think i ever meant it as a 'you don't care about the environment' thread, though i can see how it started out like that.
i think (in retrospect) i mostly intended to provoke debate and thought, and to present information to people who maybe hadn't already come accross it, or had thought that it was irrelevant to them.
sorry if it came off differently
i won't be coming to Oz again until i'm comfortable that it can be done sustainably, and currently that means no air travel (as i see it) and probably no boat travel (unless i see some good figures for boats, which noone has found yet). Lets hope we get our emissions down enormously through flights, industry, cars, etc, and maybe i'll get there yet.
i have a lot of sympathy for you, in fact, for holding your beleifs and trying to remain as environmentally conscious as you can while still living a life you choose: i do have it lucky, you're right.
you could, of course, choose to come and live over here
right.
*looks around for the next topic to rant on *
i sincerely don't think i ever meant it as a 'you don't care about the environment' thread, though i can see how it started out like that.
i think (in retrospect) i mostly intended to provoke debate and thought, and to present information to people who maybe hadn't already come accross it, or had thought that it was irrelevant to them.
sorry if it came off differently
i won't be coming to Oz again until i'm comfortable that it can be done sustainably, and currently that means no air travel (as i see it) and probably no boat travel (unless i see some good figures for boats, which noone has found yet). Lets hope we get our emissions down enormously through flights, industry, cars, etc, and maybe i'll get there yet.
i have a lot of sympathy for you, in fact, for holding your beleifs and trying to remain as environmentally conscious as you can while still living a life you choose: i do have it lucky, you're right.
you could, of course, choose to come and live over here right.
*looks around for the next topic to rant on *
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm really glad to hear so much support for our environment, our planet, our home.
My point I'd like to make is that I think there can be some environmental extremism going on whereby nothing is enough to save the planet. e.g., limit the number of children parents should have.
This isn't too much of a problem, just chucking around ideas to help the planet.
What annoys me is when passion for the environment turns into intolerance of others' for not having the same concerns as yourself.
I'm concerned about the planet, and the future of it. However I wouldnt want to be condemned if I took a cheap flight to go on holiday, or I decided to have 5 kids one day!
that's my little thought on the matter
I'm really glad to hear so much support for our environment, our planet, our home.
My point I'd like to make is that I think there can be some environmental extremism going on whereby nothing is enough to save the planet. e.g., limit the number of children parents should have.
This isn't too much of a problem, just chucking around ideas to help the planet.
What annoys me is when passion for the environment turns into intolerance of others' for not having the same concerns as yourself.
I'm concerned about the planet, and the future of it. However I wouldnt want to be condemned if I took a cheap flight to go on holiday, or I decided to have 5 kids one day!
that's my little thought on the matter
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
mm. thanks jo.
makes me think a bit. where does informative conversation stop and evangelism begin?
mm. thanks jo.
makes me think a bit. where does informative conversation stop and evangelism begin?
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
exactly!!
I think that being so passionate about the environment is like a religion in a way.
I think it's a great cause, no doubt about that. But there's no need to judge our friends
exactly!!
I think that being so passionate about the environment is like a religion in a way.
I think it's a great cause, no doubt about that. But there's no need to judge our friends
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Environmentalism as a religion sums it up quite nicely likewise relating other "modern" ideologies like disdain for animal testing, could also be viewed as spiritual issues as well.
Good thread
Environmentalism as a religion sums it up quite nicely likewise relating other "modern" ideologies like disdain for animal testing, could also be viewed as spiritual issues as well.
Good thread
SILVER Member
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
old hand
853 posts
Location: Behind you...
Posted:
Good point Jo.
I think what it comes down to is that we all have to share responsibility to do what we can, but without having to compromise too much.
I've always been pretty concerned with environmental issues, but I have to admit I have had my moments of apathy when feeling frustrated at the lack of positive action taken.
I've been slowly changing my habits so I recycle more and now I try to buy local produce when I can. I avoid buying gadgets and goods that have a short lifespan and can't be recycled, plus I am quite militant about cutting down on my electricity consumption (good for my wallet as well as the planet!) by turning down the heating, turning off lights when I don't need them, using energy-efficient bulbs etc.
I think people could do with paying attention to all the little things as they all mount up.
I kind of have to fly long-haul once every few years though to see my family, as they all live in Mauritius. But I don't go out there every year though, so I feel I'm doing what I can at the moment. I do plan in future to increase my recycling and eventually start to compost food waste too.
Good point Jo.
I think what it comes down to is that we all have to share responsibility to do what we can, but without having to compromise too much.
I've always been pretty concerned with environmental issues, but I have to admit I have had my moments of apathy when feeling frustrated at the lack of positive action taken.
I've been slowly changing my habits so I recycle more and now I try to buy local produce when I can. I avoid buying gadgets and goods that have a short lifespan and can't be recycled, plus I am quite militant about cutting down on my electricity consumption (good for my wallet as well as the planet!) by turning down the heating, turning off lights when I don't need them, using energy-efficient bulbs etc.
I think people could do with paying attention to all the little things as they all mount up.
I kind of have to fly long-haul once every few years though to see my family, as they all live in Mauritius.
But I don't go out there every year though, so I feel I'm doing what I can at the moment. I do plan in future to increase my recycling and eventually start to compost food waste too. Idolized by Aurinoko
Take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind....
Bob Dylan
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
(This got a bit long, sorry)
I would like to address that point directly, as I feel it's been made at me: I made an off the cuff remark about the need to limit population growth to Jo last night.
I think that limiting the number of children we have is vital, and I have a lot of respect for the Chinese, who to a greater or lesser extent have managed it. There will always be problems with what to do with illegal pregnancies but I would rather deal with those problems rather than deal with the huge problem that over population will cause.
At the moment, yields of grain have peeked or are about to peek. We have boosted yields with the use of chemicals and intensive farming methods, but the extent that we can carry on enhancing yields is getting less and less every year. A lot of the increase in yields comes from oil in the form of pesticides and herbicides as well as massive increase in the amount of work we can do. For example,
Seeing as we are running out of oil fast, we have to assume that the amount of energy we are going to have to grow things and therefore the amount of food we will have is only going to get less, not more. Some organic farmers claim to get similar yields as oil based farming, but that is when using tractors that may not be usable in 100 years due to the high price of oil.
Even if we assume that they can get equal yields as we do today from industrial farming, the chance of getting higher yields is next to imposable. The population of the world has doubled in the last 50 years or so from about 3bn to about 6bn. By the year 2050 we are expected to grow to a total population size of 10bn. That is a projection of current growth, without consideration of other factors like climate change. If we totally ignore climate change for the time being, we are looking at feeding 4bn more people than we are at the moment in the next 50 years. If my rough maths is right, that means we need a 60% rise in yields if we all want to eat the rich diets we do today.
John Jeavons, who is a pioneer in methods of organic farming for self-sufficiency and has managed to develop techniques that he thinks can sustain 7bn people world-wide, but this is based on a diet that is strictly vegan and composts everything, including human bodies for use on the land. This assumes a higher level of soil quality than is realistic, so the 7bn figure is probably much less, maybe even as little as 4bn worldwide.
None of these figures include and of the effects of climate change. Yields world wide will be much less because of lower rainfall and more extreme climates at both ends (hot and cold).
There is a high chance (80-90%) that unless we reduce worldwide green house gas emissions by 60% before 2050 the per cent of the world in extreme drought will rise from 3% to 40%. This will obviously have a huge impact on net yields worldwide and therefore the amount of people the world can sustain.
I know that I have not factored other means of getting power here, but the fact is that we know of no power source that can match oil in terms of price or availability.
You are very welcome to call me an extremist if you like, but the fact remains that we have a massive, massive problem on our hands, and I think that calls for massive measures, one of them being a limit of 1 child per family. Unlike the Chinese method I favor child 'credits' that can be traded from people who don't want children to people who do. I also favor this type of system for greenhouse gas emissions: the point being that the net total is less without forcing everyone to use less because people who use less anyway will be able to sell credit to rich people who use more than the quota allows.
As for the claim that it is like a religion: The only thing that it will take for me to change my mind on ANY subject, including all of those that I have talked about and including others like the existence of god is to read a peer-reviewed paper or a book that bases is facts in scientific evidence. In that respect I think my views of the world are as far removed from religion as you can get.
I heard George Monbiot say:
EDITED_BY: Sym (1169741496)
(This got a bit long, sorry)
Written by: Jo
My point I'd like to make is that I think there can be some environmental extremism going on whereby nothing is enough to save the planet. e.g., limit the number of children parents should have.
This isn't too much of a problem, just chucking around ideas to help the planet.
What annoys me is when passion for the environment turns into intolerance of others' for not having the same concerns as yourself.
I would like to address that point directly, as I feel it's been made at me: I made an off the cuff remark about the need to limit population growth to Jo last night.
I think that limiting the number of children we have is vital, and I have a lot of respect for the Chinese, who to a greater or lesser extent have managed it. There will always be problems with what to do with illegal pregnancies but I would rather deal with those problems rather than deal with the huge problem that over population will cause.
At the moment, yields of grain have peeked or are about to peek. We have boosted yields with the use of chemicals and intensive farming methods, but the extent that we can carry on enhancing yields is getting less and less every year. A lot of the increase in yields comes from oil in the form of pesticides and herbicides as well as massive increase in the amount of work we can do. For example,
Written by: House of Representatives - May 11, 2005
"I will give you some idea of the energy density of crude oil, one barrel of crude oil, 42 gallons, represents the energy from 25,000 man-hours of labor. That is about 12 man years of labor. That is the equivalent of having 12 people that work all year for you. And what will it cost you for that? $100 today, about $50 for the barrel of oil and maybe $50 to refine it and distribute it. So that is the kind of energy density that we get from fossil fuel. "
Seeing as we are running out of oil fast, we have to assume that the amount of energy we are going to have to grow things and therefore the amount of food we will have is only going to get less, not more. Some organic farmers claim to get similar yields as oil based farming, but that is when using tractors that may not be usable in 100 years due to the high price of oil.
Even if we assume that they can get equal yields as we do today from industrial farming, the chance of getting higher yields is next to imposable. The population of the world has doubled in the last 50 years or so from about 3bn to about 6bn. By the year 2050 we are expected to grow to a total population size of 10bn. That is a projection of current growth, without consideration of other factors like climate change. If we totally ignore climate change for the time being, we are looking at feeding 4bn more people than we are at the moment in the next 50 years. If my rough maths is right, that means we need a 60% rise in yields if we all want to eat the rich diets we do today.
John Jeavons, who is a pioneer in methods of organic farming for self-sufficiency and has managed to develop techniques that he thinks can sustain 7bn people world-wide, but this is based on a diet that is strictly vegan and composts everything, including human bodies for use on the land. This assumes a higher level of soil quality than is realistic, so the 7bn figure is probably much less, maybe even as little as 4bn worldwide.
None of these figures include and of the effects of climate change. Yields world wide will be much less because of lower rainfall and more extreme climates at both ends (hot and cold).
There is a high chance (80-90%) that unless we reduce worldwide green house gas emissions by 60% before 2050 the per cent of the world in extreme drought will rise from 3% to 40%. This will obviously have a huge impact on net yields worldwide and therefore the amount of people the world can sustain.
I know that I have not factored other means of getting power here, but the fact is that we know of no power source that can match oil in terms of price or availability.
You are very welcome to call me an extremist if you like, but the fact remains that we have a massive, massive problem on our hands, and I think that calls for massive measures, one of them being a limit of 1 child per family. Unlike the Chinese method I favor child 'credits' that can be traded from people who don't want children to people who do. I also favor this type of system for greenhouse gas emissions: the point being that the net total is less without forcing everyone to use less because people who use less anyway will be able to sell credit to rich people who use more than the quota allows.
As for the claim that it is like a religion: The only thing that it will take for me to change my mind on ANY subject, including all of those that I have talked about and including others like the existence of god is to read a peer-reviewed paper or a book that bases is facts in scientific evidence. In that respect I think my views of the world are as far removed from religion as you can get.
I heard George Monbiot say:
Written by: George Monbiot
This might seem grotesque, unfair, and onerous, but I would remind you that only a very, very small proportion of the world's people fly. The great majority of people on Earth, including all those that are going to get hit hardest with climate change, have never, and will never, step into an airplane.
And if this seems particularly unfair, it's because that tiny minority who fly almost certainly includes all of you.
But, put this into perspective. The last great global crisis which is in any way comparable to the one that we face with climate change, was the Second World War. And the Allied Powers saw very clearly that if they did not stand up and fight against this great threat to a democratic, or vaguely, or nominally democratic world order - that a catastrophe would ensue. That was a reasonable prediction.
And so, they had to turn to their people and say: We have to stop Hitler, and we have to stop the Japanese, we have to stop the Axis Powers. And we are asking you, millions of you, to sacrifice your lives, in order to stop those people, and in order to stop this global catastrophe from unfolding.
Now I'm saying, alongside many other people, we have to stop runaway climate change, a catastrophe just as great, possibly even greater, than Hitler promised. A catastrophe which has the potential to kill hundreds of millions of people. And I'm not asking you to sacrifice your lives. I'm asking you to sacrifice your holidays in Florida. I'm asking you to sacrifice your monster SUVs which you might drive. I'm asking you to sacrifice a little of the energy you might use for lighting and heating by going to more efficient models.
If we can't bear the thought of that sacrifice, we have become a very soft and selfish people. It's not a big deal. By comparison to what we're up against, by comparison to what climate change threatens, it is not a big sacrifice to ask of people.
It seems onerous because we are in those temperate nations which, in the early years at least, do pretty well out of climate change. It looks good. It feels good. We don't feel the urgent necessity of doing something about it. But let tell you, in Ethiopia they do right now, because in Ethiopia, every year the short rains are failing, and they are failing because of rising sea surface temperatures in the Indian Ocean, and those rising sea surface temperatures are the direct result of what we are doing in countries like this. And already, we are having that impact on them.
If this country was at the latitude of Ethiopia, and my country was at the latitude of Ethiopia, we would have cracked this problem by now. We would have seen those sacrifices as being very, very minor sacrifices indeed.
EDITED_BY: Sym (1169741496)
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
* attempts to bring this thread back to life again*
Sue Blackmore isn't flying any more either
* attempts to bring this thread back to life again*
Sue Blackmore isn't flying any more either
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Ok. I've had a rethink on this idea of environmentalism as being a religion, and I don't think I can defend the idea except by speculating that id environmentalism is a religion, then it's in it's infancy.
Environmentalism has most of the trappings of a religion. Like Gods ( Al Gore, David Suzuki ) idols ( alternative energy ) demons ( the big fat American in the SUV, the "military industrial complex" ) priests/seers ( Bluecat, Sym ) dogma ( petitions, protests )
What environmentalism lacks is a moral code as defined by scripture. That may come, however given some of the justifications for flying I've read, I'm not holding my breath.
I'll retract my agreement with environmentalism as a religion, and instead consider it a philosophy designed to appeal more to personality rather than character.
Sue Blackmore understands.
Ok. I've had a rethink on this idea of environmentalism as being a religion, and I don't think I can defend the idea except by speculating that id environmentalism is a religion, then it's in it's infancy.
Environmentalism has most of the trappings of a religion. Like Gods ( Al Gore, David Suzuki ) idols ( alternative energy ) demons ( the big fat American in the SUV, the "military industrial complex" ) priests/seers ( Bluecat, Sym ) dogma ( petitions, protests )
What environmentalism lacks is a moral code as defined by scripture. That may come, however given some of the justifications for flying I've read, I'm not holding my breath.
I'll retract my agreement with environmentalism as a religion, and instead consider it a philosophy designed to appeal more to personality rather than character.
Sue Blackmore understands.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Stout, I just spend a while writing a post that refutes environmentalism as a religion before re-reading your post and seeing that you weren't saying it was any more....!
I like the idea of being a priest though
edit: this is worth a read thoguh:
https://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html
EDITED_BY: Sym (1169853601)
Stout, I just spend a while writing a post that refutes environmentalism as a religion before re-reading your post and seeing that you weren't saying it was any more....!I like the idea of being a priest though
edit: this is worth a read thoguh:
https://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html
EDITED_BY: Sym (1169853601)
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
George, I dunno whether setting up HUB's in the UK will really wash it off your hands thoroughly
Try again
Written by: georgemc
Man this thread is moving fast! A couple of pages ago :Written by: FireTom
And how about HoP shipping airfreight?
Yet: Would you - as their customer - wait 3 weeks... wait... errm 3 MONTHS for your firestuff?
We know, and that's part of what we're working on. Fair cop!
I have 3 different prongs in mind for the attack on that item, but you're gonna have to wait to see any results. I hate making well intentioned statements that don't turn out due to some technicality.
George
George, I dunno whether setting up HUB's in the UK will really wash it off your hands thoroughly
Try again
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
*puts on priestly robes*
why don't you wait to see what his/their ideas are before mocking them?
*removes robes*
Go sue blackmore!
*puts on priestly robes*
why don't you wait to see what his/their ideas are before mocking them?
*removes robes*
Go sue blackmore!
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
BRONZE Member
Sitting down facing forward . . .
2,387 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Sitting down facing forward . . .
2,387 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
Not even if using eco-friendly washing soap?
Wrong guess (well, mostly wrong!
) - your turn to try again!
Written by: FireTom
George, I dunno whether setting up HUB's in the UK will really wash it off your hands thoroughly
Try again
Not even if using eco-friendly washing soap?
Wrong guess (well, mostly wrong!
) - your turn to try again! Written by: Doc Lightning talking about Marmite in Kichi's Intro thread
I have several large jars of the stuff. I actually like it... a little. And don't tell anyone I admitted to it.
BRONZE Member
Sitting down facing forward . . .
2,387 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Sitting down facing forward . . .
2,387 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
No more beanie then Sym - you'll have to do the old tonsure thing on your head and take to wearing coarse weave robes!!
Written by: Sym
I like the idea of being a priest though
No more beanie then Sym - you'll have to do the old tonsure thing on your head and take to wearing coarse weave robes!!
Written by: Doc Lightning talking about Marmite in Kichi's Intro thread
I have several large jars of the stuff. I actually like it... a little. And don't tell anyone I admitted to it.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
I have a beautiful purple-tie-dye Kaftan, would that do?
I have a beautiful purple-tie-dye Kaftan, would that do?
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
not the kaftan!! please! anything but the kaftan!!!
not the kaftan!! please! anything but the kaftan!!!
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Richard Dawkins.... He's that guy from South Park right ? I really should buy his book, as I'm getting tired of reading everything on a desktop monitor. Interesting article, that one, and often used by creationists to bring faith up "on par" with science. Interesting idea about mental child abuse, a little extreme, but interesting nonetheless.
My vote's with the purple caftan, why co-opt burlap robes and funny haircuts? For a sense of credibility maybe ? naaaaaaaaa, not worth it, purple hemp would be my fabric of choice.
Richard Dawkins.... He's that guy from South Park right ? I really should buy his book, as I'm getting tired of reading everything on a desktop monitor. Interesting article, that one, and often used by creationists to bring faith up "on par" with science. Interesting idea about mental child abuse, a little extreme, but interesting nonetheless.
My vote's with the purple caftan, why co-opt burlap robes and funny haircuts? For a sense of credibility maybe ? naaaaaaaaa, not worth it, purple hemp would be my fabric of choice.
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com