The narrow focus can be a distraction, because it might be possible in theory to mitigate the worst effects of climate change it by ending fossil fuel use, which in turn might theoretically be addressed without too radical change to our lifestyles and economies.
But really our reckless burning of fossil fuels is only one aspect of our general over-exploitation and over-consumption of all the Earth’s resources. Changing to electric cars won’t end the particulate pollution from tyres, etc, noted bu @John_Scully earlier in this thread; it won’t end the chemical and plastic pollution of the oceans that @Corona refers to above; it won’t end the soil destruction perpetrated by chemical agribusiness, or deforestation, etc, etc…
What we really have to do is end the over-exploitation and over-consumption itself - to recognise that an economic system based fundamentally on incentivising businesses to sell more and more stuff, however useless or damaging to the environment, as long as you can convince enough people to buy it, is terminally flawed.
Pandemics are an interesting example. They are likely to become much more frequent both because of over-exploitation like deforestation, mixing new wild species with domestic and farm animals, and because of climate change…
No - it’s not a once and once only opportunity that we can miss.
It’s all about mitigation. The less we do, and the longer we delay, the worse the consequences get - the more we do, the more quickly, the less we will suffer.
Now that would cause a riot.
Statement needs amending with the word ‘NEW’ inserted.
Diesel and petrol in its various forms will be around for many years after 2035 as cars are only a small part of fossil fuel powered transport.
Hurrah I think there has been an enormous amount of ‘unpleasant’ chemicals being sloshed around, mainly due to complete ignorance of users, and at the root of it all is the rather disappointing approval of nasty chemicals being able to be produced in the first place. Control/eradicate the production and the ignorant users can’t fail!
Like it or not, there are many nasty chemicals that have helped to vastly expand food production in the last 150 years. Without those chemicals, the Earth would almost certainly not be able to support the current population.
Now, if they had never been produced in the first place, world population would be much lower, the biosphere would almost certainly be in better shape, and life would be very different for most people. That’s the solution that would have been preferable, but unfortunately, we are where we are and the genie is out of the bottle.
Some of the practices with said chems leaves a lot to be desired though. From Scotish and Asian fish farms (I only know about those two) but world wide there will be many others to dairy and poultry farms etc where 80% of the anitibiotics and other chems are wasted on to the land and water courses allowing bacteria to evolve and become resistant will form part of this legacy.
This is the story told by the agribusiness lobby Hairbear - in fact more objective studies (including those by the United Nations) clearly indicate that the most productive form of agriculture is small-scale organic farming.
Not only is chemical farming destroying the environment, it is completely counter-productive - with one exception: the short-term profits of huge multinational farming corporations.
I’d “like” this 100 times if I could!
And also biodiverse farming instead of these huge monoculture fields that take huge heavy machines which damage the soil structure. Nature in the wild NEVER looks like this.
I barely have time to weed and once the clay hardens I can’t weed. My borders have a myriad different weeds jostling for space between my roses. Nature, left to its own devices is totally abundant.
Yep - this is what economists call ‘externalities’. The UN has also calculated their real cost - and the conclusion was that no multinational corporation would break even - let alone alone make any profit - if it paid its true costs.
Even when the cost to the government is small, it seems determined to destroy everything good and valuable about this country. It’s as if, when ministers go to bed, they ask themselves, “What have I done to make the UK a worse place today?”
When I began work as an environmental journalist in 1985, I knew I would struggle against people with a financial interest in destructive practices. But I never imagined that we would one day confront what appears to be an ideological commitment to destroying life on Earth.
It’s a deliberate plan to render the Earth uninhabitable for humans, but very pleasant for the Zionist Lizard People that live on Mars and rule the Earth through a puppet Shadow Government.
Am I doing this Conspiracy Theory thing correctly?
I think there has been an enormous amount of ‘unpleasant’ chemicals being sloshed around, mainly due to complete ignorance of users, and at the root of it all is the rather disappointing approval of nasty chemicals being able to be produced in the first place. Control/eradicate the production and the ignorant users can’t fail!