Climate change protests

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • So, everyone that goes to these climate change events have done everything in their power to ease climate change and now they are encouraging others to do the same. Is that correct.


    All the people on these marches have downsized their lives so they live in an off grid cabin, they have got rid of their cars in favour of public transport or better still cycling and walking, they have given up foreign travel especially air travel, they grow their own food or at least only buy food from known organic local producers and they make most of their own clothes or only buy second hand or locally produced clothes from locally produced yarn, they collect and treat rainwater instead of flushing perfectly good drinking water down the toilet, they wash by hand and dry their clothes on a washing line, they shun the latest technology in favour of old phones and computers that others have thrown away. And now they are encouraging others to follow their lead and live as low an impact lifestyle as possible.


    Fantastic


    Paul

  • Moved from an inappropriate area.


    i think you have a point, I'm often surprised how people fly in from all over the world to make a fuss over climate change or just discuss it. At the very least it removes credibility from those in the process.


    However I would hope that the majority of protesters are actually people that don't own cars or at least don't use one often and hopefully tick a few of the other boxes you mention. I don't think it necessary to throw away all mod cons to be concerned about the climate but I'm sure there are a few that are more than a little hypocritical.

  • It was interesting watching Emma Orbach on that Fogle show the other day. She is well within her rights to protest about climate change.
    It is interesting that the way she lives is the way we all used to live a little over 100 years ago and at about the same time as we started moving out out of that way of life is when we really started to ramp up our efforts to destroy the planet.


    I am not saying that we have to go back to living without electricity but we could all go a very long way towards reducing out consumption to a level that slows the planets decline and before we go off protesting we should all look closer to home and and start making sacrifices in the name of what we believe.


    It is like people who protest for thee homeless or refugees. OK, invite one home for Christmas then "Oh, not, I couldn't do that"


    Protesting is very easy. Changing you life is much harder.


    Just to put this thread in some sort of context this was in response to this thread


    Paul

  • I've been to the commune that Emma lives in, if she's the person I think she is then she's not too welcoming, though it is understandable as some treat her as some kind of exhibit to poke sticks at. There are plenty of similar communes around this area but it's not for everyone & I don't know that it would even be possible given the current UK population. What was the UK population 100 years ago?


    I was reading a thread the other day about emissions from various lifestyles, the premise was that if you live in a city you probably emit much less than someone that lives in the suburbs as you can take public transport or walk to most things instead of having to drive. Just commuting to work alone must create a lot of pollution. It's a valid point, but then massive cities create a need for huge areas of land to provide all the necessary things a city needs; water, food, energy & waste disposal.


    The only feasible answer is the one everyone doesn't want to discuss; lowering the population. But in much the same way that the environmental charities are ignoring the emissions from the meat industry, no politician is going to kill his career by suggesting forced birth control or worse. Then again, maybe Donald Trump will, he seems to be advocating a lot of unpleasant things.

  • Yeah, man, totally. Preach it brother. I think it sounds a lot like you are one who would like encourage people to do everything in their power to ease climate change. Go for it. Most people don't like to be told how to live their life however. I sure hope protests don't turn into a purity pi$$ing contest.


    Maybe that would make protesting [not so] very easy. It's as easy as you make it for yourself, man. Living against the grain, off-grid, away from the system can be a protest in itself for certain people or groups. There are in fact many people who protest and also live as low-impact as is possible to the same standard that you have talked about. I can think of several examples close to home.


    Maybe some people have done everything in their power to ease climate change, how do we know? Go meet people there, take a survey and find out. One of the central issues is that there are many human activities harming the environment and accelerating climate change that are outwith our power.


    Yes change starts at home. But staying there is not going to be very effective in showing support and solidarity or raising awareness. Showing up en-masse is a much more effective measure for that. Either way, it's still making an effort to do something about climate change, even if people travel in their car - it is ironic, notice how many local marches are happening that day though.


    My beef aint with people causing GHG emissions in order to meet up for a climate protest/conference, my beef is with the governments that don't impose effective solutions and go back on their word. It's largely their fault. Most individual people don't want to change their behaviour if it makes their life more challenging. Enforcing laws and policies on people, institutions, corporations etc. with the purpose of reducing negative impact on the environment and facilitating the adoption of choices for low-impact lifestyle/farming/building/infrastructure/economy etc. would make a hellova difference.

  • If Climate Change is caused by Human Activity, then the population explosion is to blame. ( Again.. 1 miilion every 4 days, a city the size of Southampton every day, 100 people while you are reading this. All will need feeding, housing, clothing etc.. etc.. ) Even if we all "downsize" our lives as aman suggests above, then in a few years we will be back at square one because the population will have increased to wipe out these gains. Surely that is obvious. Why is this Elephant in the Room consistently ignored by apparently rationale people?
    I would replace the words " climate change" with "population explosion".

  • I get what you`re saying Aman it is much harder to change your lifestyle than to wave a banner at a demo..


    However demo`s are mostly about raising public awareness and to do that effectively you need numbers or it won`t make the media. There`s going to be a whole range of people there from the hardcore activists to those who are just testing the water or starting to become aware about an issue. They are great places to meet other folk and learn about and become more involved in a cause and can be the starting point for a whole new way of life..


    I don`t do many any more but back when i was starting out down the animal rights path they were invaluable for me and really helped me to feel passionate, which lead to a much more ethical lifestyle. The lovely thing about a public demo is that everyone is welcome no matter how educated they may be about something!

  • If Climate Change is caused by Human Activity, then the population explosion is to blame. ( Again.. 1 miilion every 4 days, a city the size of Southampton every day, 100 people while you are reading this. All will need feeding, housing, clothing etc.. etc.. ) Even if we all "downsize" our lives as aman suggests above, then in a few years we will be back at square one because the population will have increased to wipe out these gains. Surely that is obvious. Why is this Elephant in the Room consistently ignored by apparently rationale people?
    I would replace the words " climate change" with "population explosion".


    I do agree with you about population potentially being a problem but it is only part of the problem and the reason why people avoid discussing it is there isn't an easy way of dealing with it. People do not want to be told they can't have kids. people do not want to be told their elderly family or their sick will not be given treatment.


    I think the biggest problem we have in the world at the moment is greed. We could cope with the current population densities if there was less greed and more sharing and cooperation.


    Paul

  • It is the rate of increase which is the problem. Doesn't matter how less greedy we become. If the pop. increases as it does then any changes will simply be swallowed up by the increase.
    Really am getting fed up making this rather pivotal point which no-one seems to get. Don't know how I can make it simpler.

  • I think people understand what you're saying, they just don't want to face the reality of it.


    I don't understand the concept that an ageing population needs more people born to look after them. We'll have robots to look after us soon, that or to chuck us in the Soylent Green machine.

  • How are supposed to get rid of all these people if we allow people to carry on breeding and we carry on keeping people alive ever longer.
    We are going to have to make some very difficult decisions so come on. Let's have a frank no taboo discussion about the best way to start reducing the population.


    You say nobody is getting it. Well let's get down to the nitty gritty.


    We spend a massive amount of our healthcare budget keeping people alive for a couple more months. Maybe that is where we need to start looking.


    paul

  • We spend a massive amount of our healthcare budget keeping people alive for a couple more months. Maybe that is where we need to start looking


    Changing the euthanasia laws would be a good place to start. It`s insane that people aren`t allowed to get help to die especially those who are suffering from painful or end stage illnesses..

  • Keeping prisoners locked in cells for life sentences, that need round the clock energy and manpower to maintain captivity. These unfortunate (not very clever for getting caught prisoners) could be used as robots. Or disposed of in a ethical way. Selfsufficient smallholder farmers on landmine areas throughout the world. Eg, your only as free as the last crop you sow.
    No state financial help for children (child allowance) only access to free food and medicine for these children. Food grown by life sentence prisoners.


    Government jobs to be done voluntarily, again free access to same food and medicine as children.
    Make energy waste a crime, punishable by growing food in the next field to land mined areas, land once farmed by life prisoners.

  • C'mon, AW, you're being not serious, you're just playing with it.
    We are looking at serious reductions here, not tickling around the edges.


    Let's see:
    Prompt Assisted Euthanasia for the following, as a start:


    Anyone convicted of serious serial crimes (More than one crime of the same type, or two crimes of different types. The serious level to start with any type of hooliganism, threatening behaviour, criminal damage, fraud, physical violence, vehicle theft, robbery, burglary, hate crimes, love crimes, etc, or as prescribed by the government of the day).


    Any person with an IQ of below 80, or above 100, excepting certain high officials of the political party in power.


    Any unemployed person incapable of finding a job within two weeks.


    Any person suffering from mental or physical illness who does not get well enough for work within two weeks.


    Any groups of persons, ethnic or political, large or small, considered to be at variance with the views of those in power at any particular time.


    Any individual persons, not belonging to a group, considered to be at variance with the views of those in power at any particular time.


    Any person, or groups of people, who do not look as if they belong to, or do not look or speak or dress as if they are native to, the country in which they are living at any particular time.


    Any persons not belonging to the political party in power, membership automatically ending at 70 years of age.


    Any persons found not wearing the uniform prescribed by the political party in power.


    Any persons who do not give the correct prescribed salute to a superior of the political party in power


    Any male who does not wear the exact same haircut as the prime minister of the political party in power.
    Any female who does not wear the exact same haircut as the wife of the prime minister of the political party in power.


    Any person disliked by a superior of the political party in power.


    Any person who farts in the presence of a superior member of the political party in power.



    Right, that's thinned us out a bit, including all of us on here. Once you start, it's difficult to know where to stop, isn't it?

  • No-one is talking euthanasia. One child per woman max., starting as soon as poss. now. Least bad option. Obviously going to cause all sorts of massive problems and social disruption, but not as much as having most of our food producing land under the sea due to sea level rise. The we will be talking compulsory euthanasia.
    The above is projected to get us back down to below a billion (where it should be), in about 150-200 yrs.

  • One child per couple is a good start, perhaps. But the devil is in the implementation of such a policy. It would involve compulsory sterilisation at the least, of both male and female. Otherwise it would not work.
    We are the mice, talking about belling the cat. We all agree it would be highly desirable to bell the cat, but how is it to be done?

  • No-one is talking euthanasia. One child per woman max


    Didn`t work too well China though did it...specially for those foetuses unfortunate enough to be female..


    Education! Even here overpopulation is still a taboo subject in my opinion, especially with parents or prospective parents. You`re the worst in the world if you dare to even suggest that someone should not continue breeding..

  • I don't think education alone would work, personally. China had education, coercion, abortion, sterilisation, and vast governmental propaganda. It worked to some extent, but as a people the Chinese have been forced over many years into complying with their system as a way of life, because the work camps always awaited dissenters.


    I fear that only a completely totalitarian system with massive powers would be able, over a long period of time, to ensure negative population growth. And it would have to be a system completely unlike that we have today, because big business would be losing millions and millions of future customers, and would not willingly let this happen.

  • As much as we would hate it, a really awful totalitarian system could sort everything that's wrong. The more likely outcome is some kind of corporation run state, perhaps the planet divided into a dozen corporations that are at odds with each other. It would be good to be rich, it will be unpleasant to be poor. I probably read/watch too much sci-fi...


    When do we get to transfer our consciousnesses into robots? Or are the robots better off without us?

  • I haven't looked this up yet, but from memory I don't think the Chinese were actually banned from having more than one child. They could if they wanted, but the second and subsequent kiddies couldn't go to college, or get child benefits or such like. In other words any children after the first had to be financed from the parent's own pockets. After a quick Google to make sure I'm not talking utter bollocks, my memory hasn't yet been completely obliterated by serial hangovers and the foregoing is true. Also, certain ethnic minorities were exempt from the rule.

  • Didn't know that. Makes some sense because the issue ( I thought) was them wanting to have male kids. Female "first-borns" were got rid of/dumped/adopted etc.. etc...This leading to a massive inbalance in the male-to-female ratios which was apparently worse than in the nightclubs I went to in my youth.