Selfsufficientish.com

My hubby recently changed our electricity over to http://www.good-energy.co.uk and changed the gas over to http://www.ebico.co.uk, green electric is easy to understand but green gas isn't exactly straight forward, but ebico do it by being fairtrade and not for profit! but they also have set up a facility where anyone can buy carbon credits from the european emissions trading scheme (EST). You can find more about it by clicking on http://www.ebico.co.uk/equiclimate/equiclimate.htm

EST sets a cap on the carbon emissions that a country can emit from its biggest industries. The goverment of the country dishes this allowance out to the industries. If the industry goes over its target its pays for every tonne over. But if they manage to do it right and reduce there output they have "spare" allowance which they can sell to the "baddies" who can't be bothered to do there bit.

Ebicos equiclimate allows you to calculate your carbon emission and buy any proportion of it in carbon credits. Ebico buys these for you and retires them meaning that the bad boys have a smaller supply and hence have to pay more or change their ways.

My hubby (Matt) set a challenge for 50 people to use this facility by using http://www.pledgebank.com/OffseturCO2 , please pledge your support and make the baddies pay!

mew wrote:green electric is easy to understand

Not so sure about that. It all sounds very plausible, but actually I reckon it's just a sop to our consumerist habits. Windfarms, onshore or offshore, don't actually address the problem of our over consumption; rather, they make it OK to consume even more (threads elsewhere give more detail why I am against windfarms - I think these industrial complexes are just another way to the destruction of the ground we live on).

I appreciate your comments Stew but whether you are in agreement with windfarms or not (I personally am), the issue of our over comsumption is surely being addressed, (if only in a small way) by the emissions trading scheme, but it only works if others buy up the spare credits. But I'm well aware of peoples views on windfarms, however if they mean that another gas fired or nuclear power station is not built there fine by me. I completely understand that they may cause damage to land in construction and endanger rare birds but ultimately if we don't generate electricity without generating CO2 then the habitats which are so cherished will be under sea water in the future. We need energy, we need a CO2 reduction, but even after massive reduction in power useage which is obviously needed, I would rather my power coming from renewable sources, and that means wind, solar and tidal. Although many see nuclear as carbon free, uranium mining and processing is certainly not and it too is a fossil fuel and will eventually run out. I'm just glad that theres debate on these matters because it means we can all have a chance of discussing issues which effect us all :flower:

mew wrote:I appreciate your comments Stew but whether you are in agreement with windfarms or not (I personally am), the issue of our over comsumption is surely being addressed, (if only in a small way) by the emissions trading scheme, but it only works if others buy up the spare credits.

I think carbon trading may work quite well at focusing industry's minds on reducing their CO2 emissions (if only they hadn't cocked up the administration of it when they introduced it a while ago). But that doesn't seem to address our consumerist habits at all. I don't foresee a time when the Argos catalogue gets thinner, or Christmas shopping becomes an afternoon's work. It won't stop our hunger for cars and roads. No kitchen will be complete without two dozen sockets for appliances. Growth will still be king.

But I'm well aware of peoples views on windfarms, however if they mean that another gas fired or nuclear power station is not built there fine by me.

But that's not the choice. No one is actually asking us to choose between the two. We are set to get both windfarms and nuclear power. The more I think about it, the worse the idea of windfarms seems to become. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that they are here to save the planet for us - they are here to enable us to go on consuming the world's resources without the discomfort of having to think about the consequenses; to go on ravaging the earth, and to make a few people extremely rich. They are about economic growth. You see them as something pretty; I see them as representations of the way we only seem able to destroy things - monsters. We are not talking about a few scenic windmills, here, but about huge industrial complexes decommissioning the land, and enabling us to tear up the planet - 14 square miles of windfarm equates to a single power station, and that's just at current consumption rates. Our daft economy depends upon growth, so it won't stop there.

And, given a growth economy, what will we do when the land is filled with turbines and powerstations? What sort of legacy is that to leave to our offspring - the evidence of how greedy we all were? That the countryside has to be sacrificed to the ever growing demands of the city is a mere detail, taken care of by persuading the planning authority of an economic need.

I completely understand that they may cause damage to land in construction and endanger rare birds

I think that's really a minor side issue. The power they generate is part of a larger equation - electricity is the lifeblood of our consumerism. The two are indivisible. The nature of the way we consume is a function of the generation of electricity. Electricity is the force that drives our economy. The depletion of finite resources, the pollution of our rivers, seas and air leads inevitably from that. We have allowed ourselves to become quite dependent upon it. By sacrificing the land to windfarms we enable our greedy habits to plunder the rest of the world's resources.

ultimately if we don't generate electricity without generating CO2 then the habitats which are so cherished will be under sea water in the future. We need energy,

A mere six or seven generations ago electricity was nothing more than a laboratory experiment. Why do we presume that it is so indispensible now? Seriously, why? Just so that we can watch 114 channels on TV, have iPods with 6,000 albums on them, and surf the net? So that we can have hot water on demand, talk to people 100 miles away from our cars, and have a machine that does the washing up for us? So that we can video our children's school play (instead of actually watching it), locate our position on he planet's surface to within 2 meters, and have muzak in every shop, lift and dentist's waiting room? So that we can have a bed that goes up and down at both ends, a bath that whirls, and an automatic pencil sharpener? It's all pretty trivial really, isn't it? I believe it would be possible to survive, happily and comfortably, on a fraction of what we use now, possibly even without it at all. It would require dramatic cultural and social changes to the way we do things now. It would require us all to become more self sufficient-ish.

But we've been consumerists like this for a mere 150 years or so. We know full well that we can live without all the artifacts of consumption - we've been able to do that for about a thousand times longer than we have with, and developed many sophisticated cultures and civilisations along the way. What seems increasingly unlikely is that we can survive with a consumerist habit. We want electricity; I'm not convinced we need it.

Muddypause wrote: We know full well that we can live without all the artifacts of consumption - we've been able to do that for about a thousand times longer than we have with, and developed many sophisticated cultures and civilisations along the way.

Sadly Stew, I doubt that for two reasons. Firstly, look at the knowledge we've lost over those 150 years (ok, some of it's recorded and could be re-learned but you and I both know there's a steep learning curve when you try to implement something without 1-on-1 tuition), and secondly, look at what's happened to us in those 150 years; population increases, drug-induced longevity, genetic weakening.

I take your point that mankind could (probably) survive without electricity, but after using fossil fuels and derived energy for so long I must add the caveat "but not in its present form".

Incidentally, anyone caught any of the coverage of methane hydrate research? I find it a little scary...

Well, OK, I may have been getting a bit carried away with my own rhetoric there. In absolute terms, I reckon it would be possible for most people to live without electricity, but it would take a bit of application and commitment, and in practical terms, it would take a larger shift than many people would be prepared for. But I also see that much of the world doesn't actually use resources in the way that we in the 'developed' world do. It is only where ecomonic growth becomes a prerequisite that this seems to be an issue.

But I think you have touched upon another issue behind our problems of sustainability - population increase. That seems to be an elephant in the room that no one wants to mention - some people can get very upset about the suggestion that we are producing too many of ourselves. Yet we seem to be spreading over the surface of the globe with all the intelligence of an algal bloom, using up or poisoning all the resources that support us. Unfortunately, like an algal bloom, we will not only deplete those resouces to the point of our own demise, but that of other life that we share the pool with as well.

Economic growth and population growth both seem dependent upon consumption, and I can't help but see windfarms as just another prop for a crocked future.

Here, as on genetic weakening, I confess to a certain ambivalence. As a dispassionate(ish) mind, I know there are too many of us. What, about 100 times too many? Something of that order, perhaps. Our population is controlled by predators (which we have mostly killed), wars (which we increasingly stifle and bracket) and disease (against which we attempt to vaccinate etc).

Yet as a father and husband, I vaccinate my children and would take arms to protect them, at one level or another. If they cannot see I will get them glasses. If they sicken, I will get them medicine. I am as much part of the problem as any, and that saddens me deeply.

That's a nice summary of the position of most people, I would imagine, HW.

But, infact, you have missed one important factor of what controls our population; we have the ability to make conscious, intelligent decisions about how many offspring we have (with reasonable accuracy). Population control is not only a function of what kills us off; we can take a proactive part in it too.

And there is (so I'm told) some statistical evidence to show that societies which have healthy, educated, long-lived families, have smaller families than ones where child mortality is endemic and life expectancy is short - the implication being that improving health and conditions in deprived parts of the world will mean that they will naturally tend to curb their birth rates some. Though clearly that's not enough to stop overall population growth.

And, of course, our daft economy depends upon population growth - all financial predictions of the future are grim if we don't have more children than we are at the moment. Talk about short-term solutions.

its going to get metnioned at some point soon...

The Chinese 1 child rule.
Personally, i see this as a good thing, the government (love them or hate them) decided that China could no longer support its population growth and so decided to restrict the amount of children that people could reproduce. It has had many knock-on effects, some positive, some negative.

I agree that population growth is a huge problem for our planet, maybe its time other governments took a leaf out of the Chinese government's book and imposed restrictions on population growth.

I'm not sure that governments setting maximum child numbers would be especially helpful, but I often think the world would be a better place if we hadn't made some of the medical advances we have. Having discovered how to make people live longer then there may well be a moral responsibility to do so where possible but I'm not sure that extends to helping people who cant conceive naturally to have children.

Thats a pretty unpopular view and perhaps I would feel differently if I wanted kids and couldn't conceive, but there are children needing parents and a world population crisis, not to mention that inability to have children (or any genetic issue effecting survival) is almost certain to be a 'natural selection' issue perhaps showing that those specific genes aren't best passed on. In my mind if you're desperate for kids then why not adopt?

its a view i agree with, and i can't have children..

Ever since i was told about my sterile state at the age of 18, i've said that i will adopt should i ever feel the maternal need rising (thankfully, it hasn't yet!). I used exactly the same arguments - there are hundreds of thousands of children who need parents (and sadly, most of them are over the age of 3 - they're not babies anymore so people don't want to adopt them) and so i'd rather adopt a child that needs a parent than go through being poked and prodded, and artificially inseminated to produce my own.

Unfortunately, there are not a lot of people who can accept this. my gynaecologist had the cheek to ask 'but what if your partner wants his own children...' i did answer that he can go swing if he's that depserate to spread his seed... This is unfortunately a popular medical opinion, that people must want children, and they must want their own children. i've been asking for a hysterectomy for years using the 'it doesn't work - take it away!' argument, but they won't do it because 'you might want children, or you might be with a man who wants children'. Women, to the medical profession (i understand i am generalising here...) are seen as babymaking machines. We have the equipment to make babies, so we will. They would rather pump women full of drugs and perform invasive and often undignified procedures to facilitate child-bearing than accept that some people are just not going to be parents (that should probably be natural/biological parents).
Luckily, my partner is also unsure as to whether he can father children (operation at a young age) so we have already discussed adoption, and being adopted himself, he has no problem with it. We are also both quite old-fashioned as we have the view that to have children we would be married and financially able first. We're not ready for marriage yet though...that's far too serious!

So, actually, its refreshing to hear someone agree with me on this one Den!

I agree with you totally about the need for adoptive parents.

A blog-friend of mine is undergoing the adoption process right now. The hoops she and her partner as going thru are gobsmacking. Including very personal questions that your best friend wouldn't ask you.

Yes - there is a desperate need to adopt children; yes, they should make sure that these kids are going to decent homes, but the hoops my friend is expected to jump through are demeaning, rude and downright offensive IMO.

They insemnate 60 year old women with babies who they are likely they will never see graduate, because we can.

its a shame that adoptive parents to be have to go through such rigorous testing...no-one asks a pregnant 14 year old questions, they all want to help her raise the baby (gereally without the father around). And no-one asks these questions to the 60 year old who 'needs' a baby either.

Still, i'd rather go through the embarassing questions (and answer them with frank detailed answers) than being poked, prodded and artificially inseminated after my partner's gone into a room with a pron magazine and a yoghurt pot!

Appreciate all the talk of population control, America seem to be doing a good job of that through the middle east at the moment . But everyone so far in this forum seems to be thinking that the best way to control climate change is to stop the population growing and all live in the dark with no luxuries such as electricity. However I think that we all have to understand if we are going to change the habits of the 6 billion humans on this planet then we need to make it easy for them, because unlike the few here who already understand the consequences of us doing nothing the average man cares more about football and the average woman more about shopping, interfere with either of these and its just too much trouble for them. And since everyone else is talking about children etc. I'm married and got none, intend on none, animals are far easier and emit much less CO2

mew wrote:animals are far easier and emit much less CO2

You've not met my cat. He makes up for it in methane.

"Muddypause" wrote:Population control is not only a function of what kills us off; we can take a proactive part in it too.

How's about substituting "could"? Human nature being what it is, and all.