The BBC is improper: particular person sacrifices gained't save a planet that doesn't want saving anyway – is that an issue?

From the climateREALISM

By Linnea Lueken

A recent BBC piece entitled “Seven Proven Ways to Help the Planet in 2025” claims that the planet is at risk from global climate change due to human activities and lists seven changes that people are making in their Life can make a difference by curbing the planet's emissions. Suggestions include: avoiding meat; stop flying; buy less clothes; Reducing the carbon footprint of keeping a pet, if you keep one at all; use of alternative home heating technologies; supporting fossil fuel divestment; and reducing plastic consumption. Although none of these proposals are new, they will not achieve what the BBC claims, both because human activities do not endanger the planet through carbon dioxide emissions, and because many of these proposals do not actually reduce emissions or target areas where this is the case will have no measurable impact even if a reduction in emissions would be desirable. For the sake of brevity, this post will only look at some of the BBC's proposals in detail.

From the start, the BBC spread scaremongering by claiming that 2024 would be the first time ever that the “critical 1.5°C limit for a whole year” would be exceeded, which, according to the authors, represented the “urgent need for a rapid reduction in global emissions.” As Climate Realism has discussed numerous times, including here , here and here , the 1.5°C threshold is arbitrary and meaningless as a scientific measurement, it is merely a political instrument. The planet has historically been much warmer, and parts of the world have been exceeding that temperature for decades without causing catastrophic consequences. After the global threshold was crossed and the media previously promised catastrophic events, nothing happened. There has been no increase in extreme weather events and other predicted tipping points have not occurred.

Even though the political threshold has been crossed, it is not too late, the BBC stresses, insisting that there is still time for the rapid emissions cuts needed to save the planet. The BBC acknowledges that most of the high-level emissions cuts it aims to achieve are beyond the reach of individuals and relegated to the realm of large government policy-making, but says individual efforts are still important.

At the top of the list of suggestions is one that Climate Realism has already covered in detail: “Go plant-based.” The BBC claims: “There is widespread agreement in the scientific community that one of the most powerful ways our species can eat is to eat it One way to change behavior to save the global climate from ever-warming temperatures is to eat less meat.” They claim that vegetarian diets produce less carbon dioxide. Available real data refute this claim.

For example, when it comes to emissions data, data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests that livestock actually accounts for only 3.9 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 10.2 percent for crop production. (See graphic below)

Figure 1. Greenhouse gas emissions by sector in the United States. Note that beef production accounts for less than half of the total livestock sector, at just 2 percent. Source: US Environmental Protection Agency data. Artwork by Anthony Watts. Graphic symbols in graphics licensed from 123rf.com.

Also note that agriculture in general accounts for a very small percentage of Americans' contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

Next, the BBC recommends people use public transport, trains and cars when traveling instead of flying. As an added bonus, say the alarmists, “reducing air travel will also likely encourage people to travel closer to home, reducing CO2 emissions even further.” As if that wasn't pretentious enough to suggest that While people should not travel far from home, the BBC highlights one person who cycled from London to Sweden, which the BBC says “cost more and took much longer than the plane would have done.” a role model for the rest of us. This is also completely impossible for most people who have to go on a business trip or want to take a well-deserved vacation. Most people don't have the time or money to take longer trips.

The BBC also recommends buying less clothing, reducing plastic consumption and reducing the carbon footprint of owning a pet by either stopping owning pets altogether or, oddly enough, giving them “sustainable” foods like fish and insects . Since many global fish stocks are overfished, putting more pressure on global fisheries to feed domestic animals seems questionable, at least on ecological grounds. Regarding the suggestion of feeding pets insects, Climate Realism has previously discussed the potential dangers of insect-based diets that climate alarmists have suggested.

Changing the way people heat their homes is the BBC's next recommendation, but most of their proposals are either expensive or something that requires major changes to civil infrastructure, such as using heat from the sewers for heating Heating houses. Obviously, this isn't something the average person can do on their own, even though this is ostensibly an article about individual efforts to reduce emissions. As you might expect, heat pumps are one of the recommended replacement solutions for traditional boilers, but heat pumps do not always work perfectly everywhere. They become less efficient and effective in colder weather, and some companies ironically recommend installing a gas furnace as a backup to avoid rising utility bills. They are also an expensive option because they pay out people who are not well.

The BBC's sixth proposal relates to the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) programs and phasing out fossil fuels for pensions and investments. The BBC points out that banks invest in fossil fuel companies, “and although the money you put in the bank isn't used directly for that, experts say it can make a difference in their social license.” The BBC is basically saying that people should pressure banks and other institutions to stop supporting fossil fuel companies. All this would do is increase the cost of the fuel required, which would significantly increase overall costs while doing nothing other than harming average citizens. Meanwhile, countries that don't care about emissions, like China, will continue to produce just as much and the benefits will end up being zero, as discussed in the op-ed “The SEC's Risky Plan to Decarbonize U.S. Financial Markets.”

Finally, the last suggestion is to reduce plastic consumption. While reducing waste is generally a good thing, single-use plastics have undoubtedly had a positive impact on hygiene. In healthcare, single-use plastics reduce the risk of contamination and help ensure hospitals maintain a sterile environment. Plastic films used for food packaging in grocery stores reduce food waste, particularly by preventing meat spoilage. The BBC doesn't specifically address emissions in this section, but rather waste and oil consumption in general, so we won't go into the matter too deeply.

The majority of the BBC's arguments rely on emissions reductions and call for measures that are unnecessary and more painful than helpful; Human carbon dioxide emissions do not endanger the planet or make the Earth uninhabitable. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has waxed and waned over millennia, and human contributions now account for just 3.4 percent of annual emissions. The rest comes from natural sources. An analysis of the numbers shows that human carbon dioxide emissions may account for about 0.28 percent of the warming effect on Earth caused by atmospheric gases. That's hardly alarming. Since the alleged catastrophic effects have not occurred despite more than a hundred years of moderate warming accompanied by a steady increase in carbon dioxide, it is more likely that all the efforts promoted in the BBC article – as long as they relate to emissions – will bring about reductions in people's happiness alive, providing comfort and freedom rather than benefiting them or the planet.

When you look at how many of the most prominent and elitist climate complainers actually live their lives, as opposed to what they preach to others, you suspect that they continue to eat their meat-heavy four-star meals and their room-sized walk-in closets full of expensive meals Haute couture clothing and shoes fill seasonally. They will continue to drive high-performance fossil fuel-powered cars while retaining an electric vehicle as a backup status symbol to appear at promotional events signaling green virtues, and fly their private jets to luxurious locations around the world while paying pet sitters to drive their purebreds Feeding animals “Animal Companions” the most expensive, trendy animal food or human cuisine. They do all this while simultaneously advising average workers to buy second-hand clothes, eat bugs, live in densely populated areas near train lines, and not take vacations. After all, the elites know what's best, the Hoi Polloi must make sacrifices to save the planet.

Like this:

How Load…

Related

Explore more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to receive the latest posts by email.