I'm on and off about it as well: My answer is

101010

(a binary joke)

42? Me too. It's a transitional year....

we need to forget global warming
It is an argument like religion and private education

there will ALWAYS be those that do not believe, and the only proof comes when it is too late.

Over-consumption is the battle to fight, as this CAN be proven, and dealing with this will deal with global warming.


I strongly believe that a government that fights rampant over-consumption will be more successful than one that fights it from the moral high ground of global warming.


it is a common sense approach, rather than a scientific approach. Science is there to be refuted, and the e will always be scientists to refute claims if the money is right.
Will the Atlantic currents fail? only way to know FOR SURE is to wait and see. too late
WIll sea levels rise 3 feet? only way to know FOR SURE is to wait and see. too late

IS there enough food produced to support a world population that has doubled in 38 years? NO

While I thoroughly agree about consumerism, my school girl sociology lessons indicated that in order to 'survive' we have to consume. eg. sometimes I see some artwork that has been created and even though I can't really afford it, and I have no use for it, and nowhere to put it, I will still buy it. I know, that by buying someones art, or someones fair trade product, or someones magazine or book, I am employing them, helping provide them with a livelihood, helping them survive.

I watched the documentary about 'life without humans' - what would happen to the planet if we ALL disappeared. It was very interesting, and somehow heartwarming - that without us, the planet would survive and flourish. My only worry is that before we depart, we end up ruining it for all the other life on earth. Having said that, they used Chernobyl as an example, and even with nuclear waste, nature seems to reclaim an area reasonably fast.

"I know, that by buying someones art, or someones fair trade product, or someones magazine or book, I am employing them, helping provide them with a livelihood, helping them survive"

They don't seem comparable to me: Fair trade products perhaps, the others seem to me to be helping individuals to sustain a lifestyle of their choice.

No government will advocate a policy of reducing consumption. That would require a rethink of our economic system which, as currently constituted, cannot survive without perpetutal growth in output and hence resource use. The transistion to some other way will inevitably involve massive dislocations, unemployment, civil unrest so they dare not even consider it let alone suggest it. They fear losing control more than anything. Why do they use every opportunity to take more powers to watch and detain us? They use terrorism as an excuse but I don't believe that. They are preparing for when the pumps run dry and the shelves at Tesco are empty.

The Cold War never ended, it just suited the intelligence officers who run Russia to make us think that way. Now the West has bankrupted itself in an orgy of consumption and the East controls the resources and, with China, the wealth. Once the American economy and the dollar implode they will be unable to continue to project power into the Middle East, then we'll see who the real superpowers of the 21st Century are. I don't see how this ends well. By the way, if you think I'm losing it, try ignoring the tripe you hear in the mainstream media and think about the longer term trends in population, resources, alliances, debt levels etc. We'll might well destroy ourselves before climate change has any serious impact. The nukes never went away.

To use your examples, Joe, a switch from cheap battery hens to expensive free range birds uses more resources to create fewer eggs and less meat. While it might be desirable from an ethical point of view, that is not economic growth, it is just rising prices. Switching from cheap, mass produced furniture to long lasting, hand crafted furniture doesn't create growth in economic transactions because you only ever buy one chair or table in your lifetime rather than renewing every few years. Clearly, this is good thing environmentally but it won't expand world GDP.

If you create money by lending it into existence and charging interest, the economy must continue to grow in perpetuity or else borrowers can't increase their incomes and profits in order to repay the debt with interest. The current system doesn't work with a steady state or declining economy. This is why you hear politicians talking about "green growth" and "sustainable development". These phrases are in themselves a contradiction in terms. You can't grow an economy without increasing amounts of energy. You can keep things going for a while with efficiencies but ultimately less energy means less economic activity and I don't believe that renewables will ever generate more energy than we currently get from fossil fuels. Nuclear fusion would if we can ever get it to work.

As for the pumps, they won't run dry for a long long time in the Middle East and Russia, they will just stop exporting to the rest of us. They have literally got us over a barrel...

What about countries that have never had any oil but still done well - many european ones I can think of , japan hasn't got much ......
Haven't they been over a barrel too ?

Well we'll just have to be nice to the russians then !
BTW, we're not exactly squeaky clean ourselves !

Posted By: Chris WardleTo use your examples, Joe, a switch from cheap battery hens to expensive free range birds uses more resources to create fewer eggs and less meat. While it might be desirable from an ethical point of view, that is not economic growth, it is just rising prices. Switching from cheap, mass produced furniture to long lasting, hand crafted furniture doesn't create growth in economic transactions because you only ever buy one chair or table in your lifetime rather than renewing every few years. Clearly, this is good thing environmentally but it won't expand world GDP.

I think a switch to a product that uses more labour and has a higher price is part of economic growth. More people are getting employed within the UK economy; total value of transactions is higher; but like-for-like prices are not rising, so it's not inflation as such. Likewise, with the handcrafted chairs, whether or not it's growth depends on the relative amount spent in a lifetime. It would be quite possible to spend more on one set of handmade furniture than on a lifetime of IKEA buying.
Consumption and production in economic terms are not inextricably linked to use of non-renewable resources. Note the efforts by governments worldwide to educate their workforces to develop high skilled economies, so as to raise GDP by selling expensive intellectual services rather than cheap unskilled labour. Less resources used; GDP higher.

jamesingram : I agree about the tent up to a point, I HATE the cold. The ideas I get for my dream house from this forum are becomming more eco friendly (recyclable, organic and disposable) and I am pleased about that.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: jon</cite>"I know, that by buying someones art, or someones fair trade product, or someones magazine or book, I am employing them, helping provide them with a livelihood, helping them survive"

They don't seem comparable to me: Fair trade products perhaps, the others seem to me to be helping individuals to sustain a lifestyle of their choice.</blockquote>

Do you know much about 'artists'? Jon? All the ones I know, do what they do because they are IMPELLED to express themselves, but are usually hopeless when it comes to the finer points of finance and marketing themselves. 'sustaining a lifestyle of their choice', isn't that what anyone/everyone does?

The doctor. Totally agree. Haven't used fabric conditioner/air fresheners/ etc. This is what I mean about trying to separate the 'need' from the 'desire'. Any green website you go on will tell you the way to save is use low energy lightbulbs. . . . . Then what?????? No, you don't need a 'minibeast habitat, or a bespoke bird feeder or unbleached kaftans to be green, but they will tell you you do.

Chris, this is the problem with consumerism, we need to individually change the way we shop, but at the same time, accept that we MUST shop, in order for our species to survive.

Joe.e not related to the late William Morris or Charles Rennie Mackintosh by any chance???????

Chris re your comment of 6 hrs ago: that's why the government invented IHT, VAT, SDLT and CGT, so that they can charge people for goods they have already bought and own, and prevent them from giving them to others, so the new generation has to go out and buy their own.

SimonH, agreed about insulation. Unfortunately, the economy does need to grow - Its a bit like lovers, they HAVE and SHOULD say "I love you" often and regularly. Just saying it once will not work. Neither will a leisure society. We have white goods that do much of our work for us, and we have cars that go way faster than horses, but we still work. The last labour gov wanted a 3 day week and it looks as if this gov is going to get thrown out just like the last one did.

As for eating out. . . . .I used to work in the catering industry, low wages and unsocial hours - didn't really earn enough to spend my free time eating out (drinking. . . . . now that was another story)

Joe.e hear hear. . . I think. It has more to do with changing our priorities. It wasn't so long when the 'antiques roadshow' was the greatest. people desired heirlooms - old = value=money=taste=. . . . . . . and now. . . .what is it? changing rooms, and 60 minute makeovers? new, expensive 'designer' mass produced, style statements.

I think I'd rather pay money for a labour intensive rammed earth home, than an equally expensive 'ungreen' house made from 'designer materials and cheap labour.

PS Ludite, I'm not related to CR Mackintosh, but I've plagiarised his work fairly shamelessly over the years!

The limit on output per unit of resources is human knowledge. We can now do much more with much less than in the past, and that process seems likely to continue for a good while yet. Whether it has an upper limit or not I have no idea. Certainly if you look at the current UK economy you can see that there is vast scope for using less resources to achieve higher value results. Look at the improvements in housing technologies discussed here, then consider the number of houses being built in the old inefficient ways. It's very hard to imagine what a world would look like in which everyone was using their full potential, but suffice it to say, we're a way off.
But, as I say, I'm only making a point about theory. I think you're probably right about the ways that things are headed in practice.

We should remember that even the poorest people in the UK are in the top 10% of income earners in the world. Most people in the world aren't spending shed loads of money on crazy things, they are just trying to survive.

I find there is an unreality about the way people think in the UK and the West in general with regard to living standards. What is it that we are doing that entitles us to such a cushy lifestyle compared to the Chinese for example? It seems to me that they are working very hard for next to nothing while we are doing much less for very much more. They send us real things and we send them bits of paper. They are soon going to realise that they have been conned and when that happens our standards of living will fall substantially, its inevitable.

We (I'm talking about the West in general, but the US and UK particularly so) have effectively enslaved millions of Chinese to manufacture consumer goods for us and they have lent us their profits so we can keep buying them. Now we are mortgaged to the hilt. This cannot go on indefinitely. At some point the dollar and sterling will collapse under the weight of this debt and the Chinese will no longer accept our paper and use the goods themselves. I don't think we are far away from that point and maybe that will be the trigger for a sober assessment of the unsustainable path we have been on for the last few decades. Perhaps a better way of living will emerge which will be more local, less wasteful etc?

I understand your point Ludite, you think we've got it all wrong and that GDP is not a good measure of the standard of living. People will be happier with fewer good quality, craftsman made, or home made items rather than mass produced crap. They should work less hard and spend more time smelling the flowers and talking to their children etc etc and I agree with you.

The point I'm trying to get across is that this will require a total change in way we run the economy, the monetary system and the political system. It is not just about eating local food and buying goods from local artisans, this is a reversal of the industrial revolution as we have known it. It is about de-coupling labour from energy and capital, reducing resource use rather that striving for ever greater production. If we think we can do this and still grow the size economy we are doomed to fail. This is a sustainable retreat not sustainable development, it is green down-shifting not green growth. People aren't ready for this and they don't understand it. It is not going to be an easy thing to achieve.