COP26

Hoddom

Well-known member
Messages
799
Reaction score
921
The timescales discussed in your post are a significant reason why a solution is unlikely to be found and why the stuff currently being bandied about is doomed for failure.
Too many people not interested in 200 year solutions. And I count myself in that.

I have one chance at my life. It isnt a practice run.
At 57 I might expect another 20 or 30 years. Its why I strived to retire by 55, which I did.
Dont get me wrong, I'll do what I think reasonable (I've repeatedly said I dont fly, the majority of my food comes from a 20 mile radius, Mrs SC and I drive 10-12k a year between us, we fill our rubbish bin and recycling once a month, we have double glazing and loft insulation, etc, etc) but outside that, I wont be pushed into anything. Especially by hypocritical politicians.
Boris is snoozing through COP 26, is happy to commit to any long term plans because he knows in a few years time it'll be someone elses problem and he can add a few more sproggs to this overly populated planet and live a life of luxury on the proceeds of his ' how I got brexit done and saved the planet' autobiography.

We've and our ancestors mortgaged the planets future and our great, great grand kids will pick up the tab.

Not a defeatist, just a realist.
Thing to remember is that measures being discussed are not to stop warming, that has happened and it’s too late. Nor is it to stop locked in latent warming, that’s too late as well. What is being discussed and what the world decided it needed to do in Paris is to stop future warming. Ie stop making it worse.

currently, all the efforts and promises about the future have been so slow coming and so pathetically small that expected future warming has only reduced by 0.3 Degrees.

the judgement as individuals as I see it is are we prepared to accept and pay for significant changes (some good some bad) for the sake of future generations and the future of human civilisation, or not. Plus, linked to that. Do we believe individual level action is sufficient to save humanity as we know it and do we want to enact it, or do we believe it is the job of global governance (politicians, big business etc) to put the frameworks in place?
Here’s my own analysis.
if we want to stay at +1.5 by 2100 then we have to get to net zero by 2050. but, it’s a simple fact that we can only do that by removing ghg from the atmosphere. we simply cannot stop all emissions. we don’t even count some of the most significant ones like air travel when doing the sums now. Currently, humanity needs to remove (depending on how quickly we reduce emissions) between 100 billion and 1,000 billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere in the next 79 years (See section 3, Summary for policy makers report of the IPCC special report on 1.5 in 2018.) that is taking out, not stopping emission into the atmosphere. that is a massive challenge, daunting. The problems are the scale required and lack of available techniques to do it that are scalable and lack of incentives Just one eg. people bang on about trees. Sure, they are nice. But they only have a decent productive removal capacity of around 40 years. Then they slow down. they die. Trees that die release CO2, methane and nitrous oxide- ghgs. So, trees are not a solution, just a short term band aid. Plus they are expensive, take up land and affect water supply, food, biodiversity etc etc. If 1.2% of the Earths land surface was planted with trees every year, year on year they would remove only 12 billion tonnes a year of co2 by 2050 and they would have used 36% of the land surface… take away land where trees won’t grow and other land use that is critical and you get a picture….
so. we need new ways of removing CO2 at massive scale and this needs scaling from proof of concept to a global business within 10 years or so if we really want 1.5. the debare about this is barely getting going with just a handful of techniques being developed (check out Climeworks who are the best in town at present or have a look at the Royal Society report if interested - links below ).
in that context, given the scale of the challenge, at the individual level choosing a bus over a car etc is immaterial. There is one thing that as individuals we can do that makes a difference and that is change diet. Local in season veggie diets do have a really positive benefit on multiple levels - climate, biodiversity, ecosystems, water security - the evidence on this is robust). Not having children is also a sure fire way of reducing your future emissions hugely (Something that is getting quite common among indigenous peoples in the Arctic who are witnesses first hand the effects of warming now). All the other stuff we as individuals can do, without the massive changes to global markets and the establishment of a global removals plan and its delivery that, in my mind, has to come from global governments is just piffing in the wind.
so, my climate life choices are to be vegetarian, Research removals for a living and drive a 3.0 BMW in the week and a gas guzzling roadster on sunny days cos they are fun and I’m a bit of a hooligan..
do I care about the future of humanity? Yes. Can I do anything really meaningful about it. Almost certainly not.
 

Fruin

Well-known member
Messages
3,635
Reaction score
1,163
If I could afford it, I would go out and buy myself an equivalent electric car (or possibly wait until hydrogen powered vehicles are sufficiently developed). If I could afford it, I would build myself an eco house using ground source or air source heating. I am already eating less meat than I used to.
The problem is that most people are being worked so hard for less reward, meaning that most people have neither the time nor the finances to adapt to a greener future.
This is why this must be driven by the government, but so long as we keep going down the road where lobbying and political party donations come from business' that want a say in policy and strategy, then I am afraid that money will always talk.
When you go into a supermarket to buy some vegetables and you see that they have been flown in from Peru, then it becomes evident that supermarkets will put profit above green credentials. When you notice that Scottish farm produce is being driven to England for packaging and then driven back up to Scotland to go on supermarket shelves, this also points to a lack of effort by the big supermarket companies.
Sustainability is very much with us in industry and construction in a bid to support a future with less environmental impact, but it is the everyday stuff that is burning up energy.
 

ozzyian

Well-known member
Messages
6,046
Reaction score
2,230
Location
East Lothian
Pretty much agree, the way its all gone most people don't have the time outside of their immediate problems (real as well as social media derived) to keep track of how their actions make an impact. From what I have seen of governments (especially democratic ones suffering from short termism/popularity contests) they are in fact incapable of avoiding bad influences.

Lets face it, it is basic human behaviour which manifests in oneupmanship, greed and consumerism that is screwing the planet. So I would say (and this is not criticism of your post) going out and buying an electric car would be a terrible thing for the environment at the moment. One thing I have noticed where I live is that Tesla owners are consuming resources at a rate well above non Tesla owners!! (in stark contrast to how they would like to be viewed) Lobby your council to limit salting the roads this winter! all these cars we've built need to last longer.
 
Last edited:

salarchaser

Well-known member
Messages
3,914
Reaction score
3,002
Location
Cheshire
so, my climate life choices are to be vegetarian, Research removals for a living and drive a 3.0 BMW in the week and a gas guzzling roadster on sunny days cos they are fun and I’m a bit of a hooligan..
do I care about the future of humanity? Yes. Can I do anything really meaningful about it. Almost certainly not.
A bit of a ramble, but here we go.

I believe individuals can make a difference.
However the impact of some individuals can contribute more than others.
My savings cannot compete with the polution caused by Bezos, Musk and Branson playing astronaut. Its not a level playing field.
Im with you on individuals choices. Ive stated mine in posts above.
You chose vegetarianism to make you feel better about driving big ICEs. An honest statement.
To be frank, I'd never give up meat but grow my own veg, eggs and lamb and the bulk of my food is grown / raised within a 20 mile radius of my home. I buy at farm shops.
It comes back to individuals doing their bit. A point I keep exchanging with Saffy. Lots of small things not one big thing.
While big business and people in 'authority' desplay uncaring behaviour, its a difficult sell though.
Boris with his multitude of children, von der Leyen and her private flights, Eustace without his EV or heat pump but telling everone else its the way forward. We've seen through Covid, the rules are for everone else.

Solutions are usually most effective when treating the root cause not the symptoms. We're stuck playing 'whack a mole'.
Reduce emmisions by using EVs, up pops strip mining and emmisions in producing batteries.
Reduce meat consumption and increase vegetable consumption, an increased need for fertiliser which generates greenhouse gasses in its manufacturing process, etc, etc.
Whack, whack, whack.

Man's desire for creature comforts, luxuries, advancement, ego massaging and convenience is to the fore. Man's desire to 'control nature', or at the very least interfere with it, is also in the mix.
The needs and wants for more travel, the need and want for more food, more accomodation, power, raw materials, convenience....... All down to man's needs and wants, and in particular, the number of people on the planet with those needs and wants. The root cause.
Not a palatable subject. The elephant in the room.

The thought of treating the root cause is abhorrent.
China discovered the problem of reducing child birth. An inverted pyramid. Fewer and fewer supporting a more aging population. More taking out than putting in.

Mans 'advancements' have a lot to answer for.
Ive watched a programme called Gold Rush. North American gold miners. Raping and pillaging the wilderness. Massive amounts of habitat destruction, immense amounts of fossil fuels burned.
Every person on this forum is responsible for that.
Phones, computers, cars, anything with a chip and circuit board in it.
Advancement? :unsure:
 

Hoddom

Well-known member
Messages
799
Reaction score
921
Which brings us neatly back to the Duke of Westminster thread!!
30 years ago I fished Lower Duart with hope. Even expectation of a fish.
Now its full of fat brownies feeding off the waste pellets going in around the pens, just beside the burn that runs up to Upper Duart loch.
I knew time had come to move on when a chopper brining in pellets almost blew me out of the old clinker row boat as I stripped back my Loch Ordie and Peter Ross (ceremonially burnt on the banks of the loch like a Viking ship by Patrick Price some 20 plus years ago).
 

keirstream

Well-known member
Messages
8,480
Reaction score
5,027
Location
Stirling
Don't know whether this should be on the electric car thread or not but it kind of sums up the corner we are in here.
Scotgov kind of saying they don't want any more oil developments but hoping that they do go ahead because then they can blame Big Bad Boris
but can still get their hands on the desperately needed revenue.
Same for the lack of implementation or even the will to do so on fish farm regulation.
Lip service doesn't get anywhere near an adequate description.:(
Greta.jpg
 

Hoddom

Well-known member
Messages
799
Reaction score
921
A bit of a ramble, but here we go.

I believe individuals can make a difference.
However the impact of some individuals can contribute more than others.
My savings cannot compete with the polution caused by Bezos, Musk and Branson playing astronaut. Its not a level playing field.
Im with you on individuals choices. Ive stated mine in posts above.
You chose vegetarianism to make you feel better about driving big ICEs. An honest statement.
To be frank, I'd never give up meat but grow my own veg, eggs and lamb and the bulk of my food is grown / raised within a 20 mile radius of my home. I buy at farm shops.
It comes back to individuals doing their bit. A point I keep exchanging with Saffy. Lots of small things not one big thing.
While big business and people in 'authority' desplay uncaring behaviour, its a difficult sell though.
Boris with his multitude of children, von der Leyen and her private flights, Eustace without his EV or heat pump but telling everone else its the way forward. We've seen through Covid, the rules are for everone else.

Solutions are usually most effective when treating the root cause not the symptoms. We're stuck playing 'whack a mole'.
Reduce emmisions by using EVs, up pops strip mining and emmisions in producing batteries.
Reduce meat consumption and increase vegetable consumption, an increased need for fertiliser which generates greenhouse gasses in its manufacturing process, etc, etc.
Whack, whack, whack.

Man's desire for creature comforts, luxuries, advancement, ego massaging and convenience is to the fore. Man's desire to 'control nature', or at the very least interfere with it, is also in the mix.
The needs and wants for more travel, the need and want for more food, more accomodation, power, raw materials, convenience....... All down to man's needs and wants, and in particular, the number of people on the planet with those needs and wants. The root cause.
Not a palatable subject. The elephant in the room.

The thought of treating the root cause is abhorrent.
China discovered the problem of reducing child birth. An inverted pyramid. Fewer and fewer supporting a more aging population. More taking out than putting in.

Mans 'advancements' have a lot to answer for.
Ive watched a programme called Gold Rush. North American gold miners. Raping and pillaging the wilderness. Massive amounts of habitat destruction, immense amounts of fossil fuels burned.
Every person on this forum is responsible for that.
Phones, computers, cars, anything with a chip and circuit board in it.
Advancement? :unsure:
re 'Individuals doing their bit' in terms of 1.5 degrees. Its too late.

The scale of the gap between what we have done and need to do is now so big that if we all halved our personal emissions overnight it wouldn't stop us going beyond 1.5. If we all stopped all of our personal emissions now, we still couldn't achieve 1.5.
We have failed to act for so long then when we did, the action was so slow and small that time's up (one e.g. we've globally promised to reduced by 2 Gigatons when we should have reduced by 24 Gt since Paris - and instead of achieving that promised 2Gt, we increased emissions.... ).

Perhaps the decision should be how do we achieve 2 degrees and adapt to that- ie stop pretending we can and still want to deliver the fastest, largest, most dramatic change in humanities history over just 10 years and be pragmatic about a future that is within the realms of possibility.

2 degrees by 2100 is probably realizable, with change that will rock the foundations of our way of life, but it will still have catastrophic effects for the majority of humanity

Population is not the real problem. Its consumption and behaviors of the populace. There are billions of people who have resource foot prints that are 20% and less of a citizen of the rich world's foot print - they haven't, over the past 200 years, been a problem. Its the mass consuming population of the West that is problematic. Its a choice. Do we want people to live as we do. Or are we willing to live as they do. Otherwise, billions need to disappear and fast... but that is too late for 1.5 or probably 2 degrees too.
 

Occasional salmon fisher

Well-known member
Messages
4,589
Reaction score
1,804
re 'Individuals doing their bit' in terms of 1.5 degrees. Its too late.

The scale of the gap between what we have done and need to do is now so big that if we all halved our personal emissions overnight it wouldn't stop us going beyond 1.5. If we all stopped all of our personal emissions now, we still couldn't achieve 1.5.
We have failed to act for so long then when we did, the action was so slow and small that time's up (one e.g. we've globally promised to reduced by 2 Gigatons when we should have reduced by 24 Gt since Paris - and instead of achieving that promised 2Gt, we increased emissions.... ).

Perhaps the decision should be how do we achieve 2 degrees and adapt to that- ie stop pretending we can and still want to deliver the fastest, largest, most dramatic change in humanities history over just 10 years and be pragmatic about a future that is within the realms of possibility.

2 degrees by 2100 is probably realizable, with change that will rock the foundations of our way of life, but it will still have catastrophic effects for the majority of humanity

Population is not the real problem. Its consumption and behaviors of the populace. There are billions of people who have resource foot prints that are 20% and less of a citizen of the rich world's foot print - they haven't, over the past 200 years, been a problem. Its the mass consuming population of the West that is problematic. Its a choice. Do we want people to live as we do. Or are we willing to live as they do. Otherwise, billions need to disappear and fast... but that is too late for 1.5 or probably 2 degrees too.

There aren't many volunteers in either camp - folks in the West willing to totally change the way they live or billions who are willing to disappear fast.
 

salarchaser

Well-known member
Messages
3,914
Reaction score
3,002
Location
Cheshire
re 'Individuals doing their bit' in terms of 1.5 degrees. Its too late.
If thats the case, why should you or I bother?
Sounds a bit defeatist.
Population is not the real problem. Its consumption and behaviors of the populace.
Population size must be an issue.
It mightn't be linear but logically, increasing population must have an impact.
In the uk the population has gone from 54M to 68M in my lifetime. A 26% increase in 57 years. That with a greater than 26% increase in demand for power, homes, roads, raw materials.
What would the numbers look like for a UK population of 54M?
We are the west after all.
It would be a lot easier for the population to become carbon neutral with 54M than 64M.

The world population has more than doubled from 3.26B to 7.8B. A 139% increase in the same period.
Dont know the split between the developed and 3rd world nations (never really like that term).
 

SOS

Well-known member
Messages
2,037
Reaction score
1,601
This whole thing is very confusing and the goalposts change constantly.
Back in the 80s most of our cars ran on 4star leaded petrol until the change over to unleaded (cleaner greener fuel)
Then in 1993 all new cars were fitted with catalytic converters filtering out harmful exhaust gases.
Then we were encouraged to buy diesel cars which would give us more MPG and be better for the environment, only to be told a few years later that they were not good for the environment.
Now we are being encouraged to buy an electric car but how long will it be before we are told something else.
You could call all these changes progress but from what we hear from cop26 they have all been in vain.

Right now I am sitting at my kitchen table on my computer the telly is on the washing machine is on the fridge freezer is on and my phone is charging do I feel guilty? not one bit because we are being told how good Scotland is doing producing 97% green electricity, so the only damage I am doing is to my bank account.

Looks like the problem is with transport, maybe someone should have told Biden before he flew over his huge entourage of gas guzzling vehicles and all the other world leaders and hangers on who flew in on private jets from all over the world, not forgetting the protesters who unless they walked to Glasgow or hitched a lift on a rubber boat from Calias have all contributed to air pollution which the conference was supposed to sort out.

We can all do our bit to help

Now my tumble dryer is on because it is freezing and pissing rain outside
 

Occasional salmon fisher

Well-known member
Messages
4,589
Reaction score
1,804
This whole thing is very confusing and the goalposts change constantly.
Back in the 80s most of our cars ran on 4star leaded petrol until the change over to unleaded (cleaner greener fuel)
Then in 1993 all new cars were fitted with catalytic converters filtering out harmful exhaust gases.
Then we were encouraged to buy diesel cars which would give us more MPG and be better for the environment, only to be told a few years later that they were not good for the environment.
Now we are being encouraged to buy an electric car but how long will it be before we are told something else.
You could call all these changes progress but from what we hear from cop26 they have all been in vain.

Right now I am sitting at my kitchen table on my computer the telly is on the washing machine is on the fridge freezer is on and my phone is charging do I feel guilty? not one bit because we are being told how good Scotland is doing producing 97% green electricity, so the only damage I am doing is to my bank account.

Looks like the problem is with transport, maybe someone should have told Biden before he flew over his huge entourage of gas guzzling vehicles and all the other world leaders and hangers on who flew in on private jets from all over the world, not forgetting the protesters who unless they walked to Glasgow or hitched a lift on a rubber boat from Calias have all contributed to air pollution which the conference was supposed to sort out.

We can all do our bit to help

Now my tumble dryer is on because it is freezing and pissing rain outside

So veg, meat, dairy, fruit, beans ....... can't see any problem cutting those foods out ! :D
 

Occasional salmon fisher

Well-known member
Messages
4,589
Reaction score
1,804
Just watched the awful scenes in Madagascar on the news.

I think most agree that the climate is changing, the only debate is how much is due to the influence of humans and how much a natural cycle.

If climate change related famine does become more common then either the world will be able to support less humans or those areas that can still grow crops will have to produce flat out and there will have to be mass transportation of food to those countries that can't grow it (assuming that is even possible politically).

All the while adding further CO2 to achieve it.
 

SOS

Well-known member
Messages
2,037
Reaction score
1,601
So veg, meat, dairy, fruit, beans ....... can't see any problem cutting those foods out ! :D
Thats my point it does not matter what we do or even what we eat someone will be along to tell us we have to change our ways.
The vegetarians and vegans tell us to eat less red meat because cows fart, what they dont say is by eating more veg and pulses we will fart more, they wont let on that if cattle pastures are turned into crops we will use more herbicides, insecticides, pesticides, etc, what they wont tell us is that more rain forest will be cut down and burned to make way for soya.
Clmate activists and now governments want us to use less fossil fuels for transport and heating our homes what they wont do is give us a cheap alternative.
 

Roag Fisher

Well-known member
Messages
2,455
Reaction score
1,127
Location
Isle of Lewis
See answer above. Sea level (and land level) always changes,

It is the rate of change that matters - and capacity to respond. Not the change itself. It is the speed that is problematic for ecosystem adaptation and human response, not the fact that change happens. If we had 5, 10 thousand years to adapt to a meter or so of change, that would not be a worry.
I like to look away from climate scientists for enlightenment in the hope of getting an, umm (trying to be polite), less focused enlightenment. (No offence meant P).
I had a read of this -
This gave an insight to longer term changes. None of which could be altered by mankind changing the way it acts.
The current changes in sea level are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and it the good old days the population would just move to dry ground. Now we try and turn back the tide!
 

Wee-Eck

Well-known member
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
299
www.timism.com/GlobalDying/CO2InAtmosphere/CarboNif/!R-Gen/ClimateduringtheCarboniferousPeriod.htm

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
As I have said before. It is all about raising Taxes and benefitting the rich at the expense of the poor. Got to keep those private jets up to date.:mad:
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,544
Reaction score
3,861
Location
edzell
Im finding it fascinating.
The massive media hype and brain washing.
Even Corrie and Emerdale participating.
Almost every program has a doomsday, its too late scenario.
Greta gets immense air time to give us her airhead blah blah blahs.
There is absolutely no room for any questioning against the mantra!!!
But there is almost no protestors there.
In fact the camera angles seem to be designed deliberately so as to not show just how few.
Even extinction rebellion are only claiming 500 and it seemed not even half of that to me.
I genuinely think you could get more people to an anti extinction rebellion demostration.
It looks like China and India have decided to stop using coal when its no longer profitable to make things cheaper than elsewhere.
Thats half the targets gone already.

For all the indoctoring, it looks to me that the vast majority of the public are become indifferent.
 

Fruin

Well-known member
Messages
3,635
Reaction score
1,163
Why, good Scottish meat does no harm to the environment, flying vegetarian faddy rubbish half way round the world does much more harm.
I agree that buying locally sourced meat is probably better environmentally than buying in vegetables from Peru or shellfish from Vietnam. The problem these days is that the choices are limited. They look to become even more limited with post-Brexit trade deals. Locally sourced meat is not the easiest thing to procure when you work hours that mean you cannot get to a local butcher or a farm shop that often. More and more the meat (and veg) we get from supermarkets is sourced from overseas. Failing that, you may buy Scottish beef, but it doesn't come with a guarantee that it has not done serious road miles from from farm to processing and back onto a Scottish supermarket shelf.
I think we are now at a time when we need restrictions on where supermarkets can source their produce from with a set percentage having to be procured from within 100 miles (as a finger in the air) from the place it is being sold. that would cut the transportation impact and incentivise and stimulate local business.
 

Hoddom

Well-known member
Messages
799
Reaction score
921
www.timism.com/GlobalDying/CO2InAtmosphere/CarboNif/!R-Gen/ClimateduringtheCarboniferousPeriod.htm

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
As I have said before. It is all about raising Taxes and benefitting the rich at the expense of the poor. Got to keep those private jets up to date.:mad:

Incorrect I'm afraid. Current ppm is 414 (yesterday) Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases (noaa.gov)

Again, what is key is not the change but the rate of change. If the change were over kn-yr it wouldn't be a problem but the change is+2.7 over 80.
 

Hoddom

Well-known member
Messages
799
Reaction score
921
I like to look away from climate scientists for enlightenment in the hope of getting an, umm (trying to be polite), less focused enlightenment. (No offence meant P).
I had a read of this -
This gave an insight to longer term changes. None of which could be altered by mankind changing the way it acts.
The current changes in sea level are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and it the good old days the population would just move to dry ground. Now we try and turn back the tide!

Seeking enlightenment about climate away from climate scientists is a bit like looking to QAnon to understand America or David Ike for an understanding of lizard biology.

I'll look at the paper and comment over the weekend.
 

Fruin

Well-known member
Messages
3,635
Reaction score
1,163
I do find it slightly ironic that those who choose to deny climate change seem to think it is all a bit of a conspiracy.

Would it be more of a conspiracy to make up scientific facts, create regular alarming weather patterns, and, get all of the world leaders to meet and discuss how to tackle an issue just to dupe the public, or, to deny scientific facts and suspect that all of these things are just a way for some to make extra money?

I really think that those promoting climate action have to change the rhetoric. No part of climate action is about saving the planet, the planet will go on in some form, it is about saving the human race. Like most animals we have a tolerance to living conditions and we are in danger, through our own actions, of accelerating a change in those conditions to a level outwith our comfortable tolerances.

I find it ironic that all of the technology that we develop to make our lives more comfortable may eventually be the cause of making our lives far less comfortable. I do worry about where this is all leading as I have three children. It doesn't take a climate scientist to realise that we have longer periods of rainfall and longer periods of dry weather with little in between. As a fisherman I well remember the quick and severe downpours that we used to get towards the end of June and into July. They wouldn't last long but would be torrential. I used to eagerly look out the window waiting on them as they signalled that the river would be up for a day or two afterwards, the consequential spate bringing up summer salmon and grilse. Then it would be back to sunny days, until the next one a few days later. My recollection is that this happened often over a summer period. That weather pattern seems to be rare in the summer nowadays.
 

charlieH

Well-known member
Messages
3,435
Reaction score
1,043
I think we are now at a time when we need restrictions on where supermarkets can source their produce from with a set percentage having to be procured from within 100 miles (as a finger in the air) from the place it is being sold. that would cut the transportation impact and incentivise and stimulate local business.

Although I completely agree that we need to get more people buying locally, I have to say that the suggestion that we should pass laws obliging shopkeepers to source their offerings from prescribed suppliers doesn't chime with me. Although I wouldn't consider myself to be particularly libertarian - in the economic sphere, at least - I really don't think that sort of statism and central control is desirable, or would be considered acceptable by many in the post-Communist era.

What I would observe, however, is that the population at large doesn't seem to have much sense that 'Buying British' (let alone 'Buying Scottish') is particularly important. I can't help contrasting it with what I have observed in the Republic of Ireland. When I'm there I do very much try to shop local, and avoid supermarkets where possible. But I remember a few years ago going into a branch of Tesco and being struck by how much of a virtue they made of the fact that food items were domestically sourced. I've never seen anything similar in any supermarket in Britain. It's probably true to say that in Ireland there is a greater connection with the land (isn't there a saying that no Irishman is more than two generations away from a farm, or something like that?), but I don't believe that Tesco would have made such a big thing about Irish produce unless their research had told them that this would appeal to their customers.

Do you think that, particularly post-Brexit, a really strong and concerted campaign to promote Buying British (or indeed Scottish) would help achieve the desired result, or are we all so far removed from the business of food production that people just don't care?
 
Top