GooberTheHat wrote:

Putting the emphasis on the end consumer is a tactic used by manufacturers. It's bullshit and they should be taxed based on their products lack of green friendliness.

Actually got quite angry the other day when I was helping my daughter brush her teeth and she started nagging me about leaving the tap running (not angry at her, just the general anger at the modern world that the germans probably have a word for). "Mrs Miller says you should always try and save water blah blah blah". 
They were telling me this stuff in school in the 1980s. Have more showers instead of baths. Don't waste water. Don't leave lights on. Always recycle. Fat lot of good that's done us.

"Don't piss in the ocean." A classic from the 1980s infomercial genre.

We’ll all be able to piss in the ocean soon as rising sea levels will mean everyone lives at the seaside.

GooberTheHat wrote:

There are so many popular things they could do off the back of this though, it's insane that it's taken them so long to (think about) do anything substantial.

Yup. Maddening. And they would've been popular 20 years ago if there wasn't such a PR campaign against them.

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Oh spiffing. Covid barely had an impact on CO2 levels. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54074733

It's interesting how the key point of that article is well covered here, but it somehow manages to miss the upside.

Though I know from experience some people are quick to chide Wikipedia references and citations, I found this very interesting:

A report by the London-based think tank Carbon Tracker concludes that the COVID-19 pandemic may have pushed the fossil fuel industry into "terminal decline" as demand for oil and gas decreases while governments aim to accelerate the clean energy transition. It predicts that an annual 2% decline in demand for fossil fuels could cause the future profits of oil, gas and coal companies to collapse from an estimated $39tn to $14tn.[74][67] However, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance more than half a trillion dollars worldwide are currently intended to be poured into high-carbon industries.[75] Preliminary disclosures from the Bank of England's Covid Corporate Financing Facility indicate that billions of pounds of taxpayer support are intended to be funneled to fossil fuel companies.[75] According to Reclaim Finance the European Central Bank intends to allocate as much as €220bn (£193bn) to fossil fuel industries.[75] An assessment by Ernst & Young finds that a stimulus program that focuses on renewable energy and climate-friendly projects could create more than 100,000 direct jobs across Australia and estimates that every $1m spent on renewable energy and exports creates 4.8 full-time jobs in renewable infrastructure while $1m on fossil fuel projects would only create 1.7 full-time jobs.[76]

In addition, also due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry, natural gas prices have dropped so low that gas producers were burning it off on-site (not being worth the cost to transport it to cracking facilities). Bans on single-use consumer plastic (in China, the European Union, Canada, and many countries in Africa), and bans on plastic bags (in several states in the USA) have also reduced demand for plastics considerably. Many cracking facilities in the USA have been suspended. The petrochemical industry has been trying to save itself by attempting to rapidly expand demand for plastic products worldwide (i.e. through pushbacks on plastic bans and by increasing the number of products wrapped in plastic in countries where plastic use is not already as widespread (i.e. developing nations)).[77]

Red wine jus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_the_environment

Off the back of this, I've always thought that wrapping perishable goods in permanent packaging, was perverse. After the plastic bag ban/charge initiative, the west shouldn't be too far off fixing this, I'd think. Teabags, for example, are a mother fucker.

It's also hard to be responsible, when all the key points on all perishable items are written in the finest of fine print.

Escape wrote:

Kidding aside. I'm ready to sacrifice some nature-averse comforts in my life - are you?

I absolutely love motorbikes and couldn't afford an electric replacement (not even close), but if the gov offered like-for-like swaps I would. That's the real problem: governments need to subsidise our losses with eco-friendlier replacements, else those with the least are likely being asked to give up the most. In lifestyle terms, not monetary.

I (still) think the whole argument needs streamlining. I'm all for cutting down on a lot of things. Including much of the stuff that ardent environmentalists call for, but consider the argument outlined in the following article:

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/opinion/pets-uk-ownership-cats-dogs-carbon-environmental-impact-b1249610.html

Your interest in motorbikes is probably a drop in the ocean compared to the environmental cost of the average pet. Pet related taxes should probably go right up.

I really want a cat, but I also think people with pets, who put a certain amount of effort into admonishing others for their attitude towards the environment, should probably have a rethink.

If this is all about net levels CO2, then pet ownership should absolutely be in the same conversation as fossil fuels.

I'd personally like to see a reduction in the use of fossil fuels (if not a complete switch away from them), mostly for the public health issue (people die in greater numbers, right now, from respiratorial issues and asphyxiation. As well as poisoning).

If the byproduct is a meaningful reduction in CO2, and it happens to have the desired effect on the global climate, then that would be great.

Pets though, I dunno. But given the current form of the argument, it’s right to put pet owners on the same rap sheet as fossil fuels. Possibly more so, because unlike vehicles and livestock, all that energy is directed at a relatively selfish purpose.

I also think some people need to understand this is as much about personal sacrifice, as it is about the government.

Ok, switching the national grid to renewables or nuclear is an infrastructural issue. We personally can’t do much about that. But our food choices, energy consumption, modes of travel etc, are personal choices. And the government and industry do move in response to that.

That said, like my arguments regarding punishments for racism, the goverment can stand to do a lot of good work, with piecemeal punishment.

Some parts of the world, people litter with the most irresponsible and frustrating absence of respect. But in other parts of the world (Japan is defintely a big one), they don’t even have bins, and everything is spotless. So there’s much the government could do in that regard, and similar instances.

And like Escape’s suggested, for this topic, it shouldn't just be about sticks, carrots would be helpful too.

But I don’t think the government alone is responsible for the state of the planet.

In my view the personal responsibility thing has run its course now whether voluntary or forced by governments through taxation. All taxtaion is going to do is increase inequality.
This is going to have to take big, big national level changes from a handful of countries otherwise we may as well go and burn some tyres, get it over with quicker.

We’re fucked unless aliens, time travellers or magicians suddenly appear with solutions.

Our only realistic chance is large-scale unilateral action from governments and corporations. Which is so massively unlikely that I don’t personally hold out any hope.

Yossarian wrote:

Yeah, bollocks to that opinion piece. I’m planning not to have kids due to the state of the environment, I fully intend to have dogs at some point to provide some companionship that my later life will be sorely lacking.

That's not an opinion piece though. The original study was from 1998 apparently. It's a conservative estimate too. If you look around online, the more objective environmentalists fully respect the result of the study.

It does make a great deal of sense too. The meat eating, and the agricultural work to support the animals to feed the pets, as well as packaging and logistics. It's quite decadent really.

But again, it makes no fucking difference anyway. At this point we might as well all start taking long haul flights and starting tyre fires.

Look, this isn’t about personal choices, it’s never been about personal choices, it’s about businesses that make their money from pollution and the governments that let them. That’s it, that’s what’s going to kill us.

I mean:

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

Bollocks, companies don’t only respond to supply and demand, they also follow laws.

Any company could make a killing from producing heroin, but they don’t because it’s illegal. It’s not just about market forces, it’s about what we do or don’t allow companies to do.

1998.
I think pet food has come quite a long way in the past 20 years. It will of course depend on what you feed your pet naturally (also what pet and the size of it).
The food I give to my dog has two types of meat, well fish, Scottish salmon and sardines. Presumably heavily reclaimed from the shit humans won't eat for the most. Combined with veg, dried, put in a sack and delivered to store/consumer. He gets through a 12kg bag every 3 months. So around 1kg per week.
It is 85% fish, the ratio isnt stated but lets be honest its going to be more sardine than salmon.
850g of fish per week.
Im finding conflicting info on the CO2 impact of Scottish Salmon but lets assume the highest I have found of 11.2kg of CO2 per 1kg of fish.
Lets assume the food is all Salmon no sardine, that si 9.5kg of CO2 per week.

The average car in the UK emits 0.41kg of CO2 per mile.

So my dog's food is equivalent (worst case scenario remember reclaimed meat and sardines) per week of driving 23 miles in an average car.

I'll keep my dog thanks.

edit: although it would be good for pet owners to consider swapping out their food based on CO2 emissions where it would still provide a healthy diet, not these morons who think cats and dogs can be vegan. Personally I have found fish is better for my dog anyway. He goes loopy for fresh and dried sardines.

They shouldn’t be near the centre of the conversation because they’re a drop in the ocean.

What should be near the centre of the conversation, in fact, what should be the entirety of the conversation is the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.