The biggest impact anyone can have on climate change is to go vegan. I completely agree with the people who refuse to take flights, drive cars etc...but if you're also a consumer of animal products then you're wasting your effort because no amount of pious "environmentalism" is going to make up for the BLT with cheese that you eat for breakfast in the morning!

I think you will find it depends on how many flights and how many animal products you consume. I also don't think anyone is wasting their efforts by cutting down their consumption.

Actually, you are wrong about the BLT.

Farming of pigs done correctly could be very beneficial, and trumps soya prodution in the green stakes my miles.

 http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/09/07/strong-meat/

I think Plane Stupid are off the mark here too, shipping produces more C 02 than planes do, couple that with the products being shipped (useless consumer products all made with a huge carbon footprint), and there is your problem. Flying could be made to be sustainable.

> shipping produces more C 02 than planes do

... but planes also produce nitrous oxide, and worse than either of those is the water vapour trails they leave in the sky. Also, these gases have a greater impact on climate change than they otherwise would cos they are released at such height.

> Flying could be made to be sustainable.

Really? Convince me.

... and stop this naive arguing over irrelevant personal choices. They're things that capitalism gives us to make us feel like we have some power, and never have and never will result in any meaningful change. The biggest cause of CO2 emissions is industrial capitalism run by the ruling class, not meat eating or flying, you liberal fools!

Whether we eat meat or not, fly or not, or choose to live in a hole in the ground, it's fucking totally irrelevant when we're talking about social change, and is exactly the type of rubbish that the state and ruling class love us to spend our time talking about. Read some books, develop an understanding of power, class and the way that things can change; or fuck off out of the radical movement back to Greenpeace or some mad vegan group.

www.endciv.com

>> The biggest cause of CO2 emissions is industrial capitalism run by the ruling class, not meat eating or flying, you liberal fools!

Irrelevant. The biggest cause of CO2 emissions will be China, Brazil and India as they continue to go through mass industrailisation.

They are all much bigger than the UK, they all are using coal power stations (china is building them by the dozen), and they will all happily buy off the world market the resources that we don't buy, because they prices will be that bit cheaper!

The UK turning to 30, building wind turbines and taxing flights to the roof is completely pointless when you look outside of the UK at the BIGGER countries. TO blame 300,000 deaths on global warming on the UK is frankly stupid.

Its totally naive to just think about the UK if you actually subscribe to global warming

It's not irrelevant you fool! As you well proved with what you then went on to say!

"The biggest cause of CO2 emissions will be China, Brazil and India as they continue to go through mass industrailisation."

Exactly - seeing consumer choices as the (or even a) solution is a joke, it's the state and capitalism (including China, Brazil and India of course) that has to go!

But we don't live there, we live and struggle here, so it's the ruling class and form of capitalism that we have here that we have to fight to get rid off. Moaning that other parts of the world are the real problem is just lazy and let's us off the hook here.

shipping produces more C 02 than planes do

... but planes also produce nitrous oxide, and worse than either of those is the water vapour trails they leave in the sky. Also, these gases have a greater impact on climate change than they otherwise would cos they are released at such height.

I know there are papers published in journals about global warming, and for that reason I am not skeptical, but can you point me to peer reviewed science that shows water vapour (clouds are water vapour) are worse, and explain to me the problem with nitrous oxide, how much is produced by planes and the effects, and that anything that talks about height of release, and any difference that makes. Not being pedantic, just interested.

> Flying could be made to be sustainable.

Really? Convince me.

In a global society that has made the switch to being green, a certain amount of fossil fuels could be used still. I vote for keeping flying.

Good points, Anarchist.

>> www.endciv.com

Ah, Derrick Jensen. Most people I know who read him get driven to a radical politics of inaction. I worry this "get the big picture, man" stuff goes full circle sometimes: yes,consumer choice means virtually sod all, but just going on about how it's all or nothing also does virtually sod all.

Yeah, also H, in my original post, I mentioned the amount of useless crap shipped around the world, and the carbon needed to make that. Seeing as you mentioned Nitrous oxide, I wounder how many more noxious substances are pumped into the enviroment from their manufacture, and consquent incinerating/landfilling?

Take away that, and the shipping (of shit) Flying will be fine, an insignificant drop in the ocean that helps keep us international.

I think you have the wrong target.

> can you point me to peer reviewed science that shows water vapour (clouds are water vapour) are worse, and explain to me the problem with nitrous oxide, how much is produced by planes and the effects, and that anything that talks about height of release, and any difference that makes. Not being pedantic, just interested.

This from www.airportwatch.org.uk:

"Aircraft emit CO2, the gas responsible for about 80% of global warming. But they also create water vapour at high altitude which may be even more damaging. The Government suggests this may exacerbate the warming effect of air travel by a factor of 2.4, although the International Panel on Climate Change that reports to the United Nations suggests a factor of 2.7. [The UK Government now uses a figure of 1.9, while waiting for better clarity of the science]."

And below from this report:  http://www.transportenvironment.org/Article201.html

"Aviation is currently responsible for 4 to 9%
of the climate change impact of global human
activity and its absolute and relative share is
rapidly growing.

In fact, the contribution of aviation to climate change is cur-
rently 4 to 9% at the global level and 5 to 12% in the EU.

When a figure of 3% is quoted, or even lower, for the current
contribution, the full story is not being told, and/or old infor-
mation has been used:
◗ In 2004 the contribution of aviation to EU25 CO2 emissions
was indeed about 3% , but this figure refers only to the
sector’s contribution to, precisely, CO2 emissions, rather
than to its total climate impact, i.e. including NOX emissions,
contrails and cirrus clouds, which is 2 to 5 times greater than
that of CO2 alone (Sausen et al., 2005)
◗ The industry also uses old figures and hence ignores the
rapid growth the industry has undergone over the last
decade or more. For example, the 1999 IPCC Report on
Aviation and the Global Atmosphere (IPCC 1999) stated
that the contribution of aviation to CO2 emissions was 2%
and to made-made radiative forcing 3.5% in 1992, fourteen
years ago. The rapid growth of aviation and aviation emis-
sions means that situation has meanwhile changed. In 2005,
emissions again grew by 1% . Growth in CO2 emissions from
international aviation since 1990, the base year of the Kyoto
Protocol, now stands at 83% .

The estimate of a 5% contribution in the EU in 2030 is also
flawed:
◗ It is based on a ‘business as usual’ scenario explored in a
European Commission report published in 2003 (EC 2003).
This scenario assumes very low growth rates for aviation
emissions in the EU, a mere 1.6% per year between 1990
and 2030, while in reality there was 4.3% growth per year
between 1990 and 2004. In addition, it ignores the fact that
other sectors have emission reduction commitments under
the Kyoto Protocol.
◗ It also ignores the non-CO2 climate impacts referred to
above.

A number of recent studies have concluded that the contribu-
tion of aviation to climate change will grow very significantly
in the future if growth continues unabated and the EU takes
its commitment seriously to keep global warming below 2
degrees Celsius.

According to the Tyndall Centre on Climate Change, in the
most optimistic scenario aviation emissions will amount to
40% of total allowed emissions by 2050; in the most pessimis-
tic scenario aviation emissions will equal total allowed emis-
sions in thirty years from now (2036) (Tyndall 2005). In other
words: all other sectors of industry would have to reduce their
emissions by approximately 80% between now and 2050, or
possibly even by 100% between now and 2036."


> I think you have the wrong target.

You have a solid point that shipping, and mass consumerism generally, are huge problems. Almost too huge - aviation offers a handle on the fastest growing emitter. I'm not saying aviation is the biggest issue, but I think it's one worth taking action against. Incidentally, aviation is increasingly replacing (well, supplementing) other forms of freight, thanks to the absence of fuel tax. E.g. the proposed second expansion of Manchester airport is for freight.

> In a global society that has made the switch to being green, a certain amount of fossil fuels could be used still. I vote for keeping flying.

I would also love to live in that world.

>> Farming of pigs done correctly could be very beneficial

"done correctly could be"... exactly. Certainly aint now.

>> and trumps soya prodution in the green stakes my miles.

Most soya currently being grown is for livestock consumption.

It's not irrelevant you fool! As you well proved with what you then went on to say!
"The biggest cause of CO2 emissions will be China, Brazil and India as they continue to go through mass industrailisation."
Exactly - seeing consumer choices as the (or even a) solution is a joke, it's the state and capitalism (including China, Brazil and India of course) that has to go!
But we don't live there, we live and struggle here, so it's the ruling class and form of capitalism that we have here that we have to fight to get rid off. Moaning that other parts of the world are the real problem is just lazy and let's us off the hook here.


You're wrong. Who are you to say to a billion china men that they can't have cars / stereos / semi-detached houses if they want to? You don't have that power my Führer.
The only possible way you can enforce your viewpoint of these countries is to build a massive war machine and take them over and enforce your viewpoint on them in the same way that Hitler tried to enforce his ideals on the world.

CHina isn't about exporting goods to the USA. Its about people there wanting a big car and plasma tv - just like the rest of us. Even 3rd worlders want these things. Its human nature.

There is no such thing as "the ruling" class. Its a jungle driven by wants and incentives, leading to supply and demand. You are either a diner or a victim. That is what nature is about - evolution and survival of the fittest. if you can't keep up and compete then you are clearly just a failed strand of evolution in the same way as the dodo bird. Adapt and compete or be left behind. If we spend all our time trying to fix the world CO2 levels whilst china just carries on building coal power stations then we too will become a 3rd worlder AND we wont have made a blind bit of difference.

Bore off you fuckhead, with your above statements you've just shown yourself to have no radical politics in you at all.