School children strike/protest over climate change.

[adam2]

Interesting, and I can see SOME merit in this sort of thing, I do however wonder how many of these children are actually DOING anything on a personal level to reduce FF use.

Walk to school ?
Keep electronic gadgets until defective, rather than asking for the newest version ?
Wear clothes and shoes until worn out rather than expecting the latest fast fashion ?
Reduce electricity use by turning off lights and appliances when not in use ?

Ask their parents to consider the following.
Use public transport rather than a car when possible.
Replace household appliances, furniture and the like only when defective and not because a new style is available.
Consider UK holidays rather than air travel.
When new appliances are required, purchase only high efficiency versions.
Turn the heating down, and use warm clothes and bedding.


I have no doubt that SOME of the children do the above, but I suspect that a lot are demanding that someone else take action, preferably without impinging on their lifestyle.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47250424

[RenewableCandy]

Nature knows no force equal to that of a kid nagging its parents. Trust me on this

[adam2]

Nature knows no force equal to that of a kid nagging its parents. Trust me on this

I agree, but my hope is that some of them might STOP nagging for the latest electronic entertainment or the latest fashion in trainers, and might START nagging in favour of walking, or energy conservation, or public transport, or renewable energy infrastructure.

[BritDownUnder]

I have heard about this in Australia as well from a colleague. I think a Swedish school student started this trend on faceb#!@k.

I have a young son but being only three he does not worry about climate change just whether he can nag enough to get the latest Thomas the Tank engine series train.

[RevdTess]

I have no doubt that SOME of the children do the above, but I suspect that a lot are demanding that someone else take action, preferably without impinging on their lifestyle.

I think this is a noticeable shift over recent years. Whereas twenty or thirty years ago people were trying to convince one another to reduce their ecological footprint and do practical local work in environmental sustainability, now there seems to be a realisation that actually this is not enough when the majority just carry on as if there are no limits or constraints except money. The result is that more young people are likely to see government action as the only viable solution, and personal change feels self-righteous and ineffective if not completely futile.

So I think you're right that they're demanding that someone else take action, but that's not out of selfishness, but rather because individual action and change limited to those who care has failed, and only top-down imposed restraints now seems to have any chance of success. I'm pretty sure they largely recognise that such change would impact their lifestyles, but until such policies are enacted we'll never know. After all, if Brexit fans are happy to endure economic hardships in order to change their world, why wouldn't climate campaigners?

[adam2]

I agree that government action is needed on climate change, but this should be in addition to individual actions.

Governments have a mixed record on climate, and when they DO mandate energy saving measures or encourage renewable energy production, this is often hated and bitterly opposed.

Subsidies for grid tied solar, did IMHO work, considerable renewable energy production resulted. Much hated for spoiling the view and being a "subsidy for the rich"

And as for wind turbines, even more successful and even more hated !

The proposed tidal power scheme in the Bristol channel has been dropped "a great victory for local democracy"

Even the partial ban on incandescent lamps was hated, with many people going to a lot of trouble to circumvent it.

Mean while, public transport becomes more expensive and in many cases less satisfactory, whilst cars become cheaper to buy and cheaper to run, as petrol taxes fall each year.

[Little John]

Energy savings, in a usury based monetary capitalist system, are either pointless from a personal point of view or pointless from a systemic point of view.

Lets say energy efficiencies were introduced that meant end user consumption was effectively cut by 50%. This would mean one of two things:

Either the money the end user saved would be spent elsewhere and so be translated into consumption elsewhere. Thus negating the initial efficiencies gained. Or, the monetary savings would not be passed onto the end user. In which case, the energy company would have more to invest elsewhere. Again, translating as consumption elsewhere that would offset the initial efficiencies.

Another scenario might be one in which the consumer is simply forced by legislature to use less energy in their end use. This would, in principle, definitely mean they had more disposable income to spend elsewhere. Which leads us back to the initial offsetting of the initial efficiencies.

There is only one way, systematically, to use less energy. And that is by taking consumption out of the system and not allowing it to pop up elsewhere in the system.

Objective, economic contraction, in other words.

As things stand, that is not going to happen unless it is forced on us by physics.

[emordnilap]

Yes. And within this, the EU’s blind obsession with “competition� (ahem) has much to answer for.

[kenneal - lagger]

.........There is only one way, systematically, to use less energy. And that is by taking consumption out of the system and not allowing it to pop up elsewhere in the system. ................

So that is why the Kleptocracy are trying to impoverish the working and middle classes with globalisation and austerity. By taking money out of our pockets and putting it into the financial economy of worthless bits of (digital) paper they are actually doing the environment some good!!

Roll on the next banking crisis.

[vtsnowedin]

Energy savings, in a usury based monetary capitalist system, are either pointless from a personal point of view or pointless from a systemic point of view.

I totally disagree.

Lets say energy efficiencies were introduced that meant end user consumption was effectively cut by 50%. This would mean one of two things:

Either the money the end user saved would be spent elsewhere and so be translated into consumption elsewhere. Thus negating the initial efficiencies gained. Or, the monetary savings would not be passed onto the end user. In which case, the energy company would have more to invest elsewhere. Again, translating as consumption elsewhere that would offset the initial efficiencies.

You are assuming that all consumption is energy which it is not. When an end user finds a way to complete a task using less energy his production cost for that task is reduced by the cost of the energy saved. He can then use his increased profits for any thing he chooses including increased savings or increased production at the lower per unit energy cost thereby increasing GDP without increasing total energy use.

Another scenario might be one in which the consumer is simply forced by legislature to use less energy in their end use. This would, in principle, definitely mean they had more disposable income to spend elsewhere. Which leads us back to the initial offsetting of the initial efficiencies.

No, alternatives to energy use are often more expensive then the use of the energy or the fossil fuel that provides it. Think of spading up a garden by hand vs. a tractor plowing in Iowa.

There is only one way, systematically, to use less energy. And that is by taking consumption out of the system and not allowing it to pop up elsewhere in the system.

Consumption IS the system. Take it out and you create collapse. If you want to reduce energy consumption simply raise the price of it and people will use less without a unit by unit reduction in productivity.

Objective, economic contraction, in other words.

As things stand, that is not going to happen unless it is forced on us by physics.

I think physics will have it's day soon enough.[/quote]

[Little John]

If a profit is increased as a consequence of energy saving, where exactly do you think that profit goes?

Oh no... wait... you have already answered that. In turn, disproving your own argument.

It gets spent as alternative consumption elsewhere in the system either by the individual making the initial saving, or by the person who is lent that money after it has been deposited in the banking system. All of which means that any energy saving is cancelled out.

And yes, consumption is, indeed, the system. And yes, this means that for consumption to fall, ,as it needs to, the system will fall. However, continued consumption will also make the system fall with even more serious consequences for the wider, underlying ecological systems without which there is no economic system to begin with.

There are only two outcomes left. We either crash or we burn.

[vtsnowedin]

Again you are considering all consumption as energy. In fact energy is a portion of most consumption but only a fraction of it. Reducing that fraction does not reduce the total consumption.

[kenneal - lagger]

.............There are only two outcomes left. We either crash or we burn.

I've got to agree with that although "We either crash or we burn and crash" would be more accurate.

[Little John]

Again you are considering all consumption as energy. In fact energy is a portion of most consumption but only a fraction of it. Reducing that fraction does not reduce the total consumption.

All consumption either entails the direct consumption of energy and other raw resources (primary economic activity). Or, it involves leveraged, abstracted activities who existence depends on primary consumption having occurred further down the chain of economic dependencies (secondary/tertiary economic activity). Primary economic activity comes first and, without it, all other secondary and tertiary activities no longer have an economic foundation on which to exist.

[vtsnowedin]

Again you are considering all consumption as energy. In fact energy is a portion of most consumption but only a fraction of it. Reducing that fraction does not reduce the total consumption.

All consumption either entails the direct consumption of energy and other raw resources (primary economic activity). Or, it involves leveraged, abstracted activities who existence depends on primary consumption having occurred further down the chain of economic dependencies (secondary/tertiary economic activity). Primary economic activity comes first and, without it, all other secondary and tertiary activities no longer have an economic foundation on which to exist.

Apparently labor, planning, supervision and other overhead does not exist in your economy. Is the computer you are sitting in front of just a couple of gallons of diesel? What about the food you ate for breakfast? Or the clothes on your back?