I'm trying to save our planet

Grammaretto, I think you might tell their employer about that if you know who employs them.They have not been properly trained.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation - are they to be trusted, as it were? Trying to read around this whole subject, but I am a bear of small brain.....

www.thegwpf.org/uk-climate-trends-plus-ca-change/

www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/

It is possible to wet up a wedge of toilet paper instead of using botty wipes.

(If Alexa can be graphic, so can I) for Alexa.

Certainly many wont bother or even understand the danger we are in. But others will do something helpful. Every huge social shift has small beginnings. Already we see great initiatives such as the heat conserving council houses; the cost of such will come down as efficient production improves.

I watched the panorama program last night, they analysed a families carbon emissions and that was their conclusion. It's one major footprint that we can most easily reduce. Will people choose to do something that impacts on their lives? I am not sure they will.

Daisymae, I buy only the flesh of fish. Have omitted cow milk for months now use nothing but Oatly. Oatly is easy to prefer to cow milk. I almost never think about eating the flesh of mammals now. It's easy for me as I live alone and only my dog eats dog meat. I know keeping a companion dog is a luxury and the time might be coming when there will be no companion dogs except for the very rich.

Looks like the most impact in reducing carbon emissions can be achieved by cutting down on meat and dairy. I wonder how have reduced consumption for environmental reasons?

I recommend keeping a small plastic bidet, where there isn't already a plumbed in bidet. Washing the botty in nice warm water is more effective than wiping and I don't need any wiper cloth just a small botty towel to dry with.

I've just bought toilet rolls in Aldi wrapped in paper packaging rather than plastic.

Culag, there is and will be plenty of land to feed everyone without further deforestation. Land wastage mainly involves growing cereal crops for meat production. Most is fed to animals that don't even have cereal in their natural diet - especially for 'finishing' beef. The aim is purely commercial, in that they put on weight quickly. The diet would kill them long term, but who cares? They are to be slaughtered anyway so that some people can eat their (unnatural) flesh!

Gillybob - excellent! Why/ who uses wipes? D in L did 15 years ago and clogged up our septic tank!

Surely another thing to factor into the population problem is that if sea level rises to predicted levels, there will be a lot less land area to accommodate everyone, and to produce crops. Sorry I don't have figures or links at hand, but I once found an interactive sea level rise map which amazed me.

Sorry yogagran but those gels contain chemicals which go into the water system. Even the Cornish one.

Phenoxyathanol is the vaccine preservative that causes the allergic “bump” and soreness that some people get after a vaccination. If ingested it can cause an acute allergic reaction and depress breathing.

Not a good thing to put on your tender parts and not good for the planet.

Incinerators have to run full time on full power in order to work. Not much of an incentive to recycle.

Instead of the non biodegradable toilet wipes you could try toilet paper gel. A Google search for Toilet paper gel will come up with several places selling this gel including a small Cornish company

We are already growing enough food to feed 9 billion, but one third of all food goes to waste, mostly between grower and end consumer. www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/ so a concrated effort to reduce food waste between grower and market can make a difference.

How fast population figures will fall is anyone's guess. We are talking about events 75 years plus in the future. Lets face it, Beeching is being castigated for closing railways in the 1950/60s, and not realising that 50 plus years later we would need them, so I am certainly not even going to hazard a guess, beyond that I think population will gradually fall and that we are now close to peak population.

I don't buy large compostable rubbish bin liners because they still end up together with the rubbish they hold, in the incinerator at our Veolia waste disposable plant.

I use compostable small bags for food waste because that goes into the green bin which is collected for compost.

The same dilemma for dog poo compostable bags. If they are disposed of in general rubbish, most of it is incinerated, land fill these days is too expensive for most councils.

Gma29 You can buy compostable 50L bin bags on Amazon for 35p a bag (4.2 star reviews).
All-Green 50 Litre Biobag Compostable Swing Bin Liners with Composting Guide, 25 Bags www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B005HF4EJQ/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_6hTODbKT6XNQT?tag=gransnetforum-21

There are 30L ones for 24p a bag with 4.5 star reviews.
ECO WAVE 100% Biodegradable and COMPOSTABLE BIN Liners, 30 litres, 50 BIOBAGS www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07JJ9PW3H/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_DtTODb4SDWQZM?tag=gransnetforum-21

I’m finding this an interesting discussion. Do you think a population of 9 billion or so is sustainable? How far will it fall below that if it does fall?

And whats the time scale? How long do we have to get it to sustainable levels? Is time on our side?

It is not just a question of births, but deaths. The years of one child only policy in China has meant that the proportion of population under 25 is much lower than in older age groups www.populationpyramid.net/china/2019/ so even if these cohorts of the population have more than one child, this will not stop the population falling because the numbers dying in the older age groups will still outnumber the children being born.

I don’t think that will be a sufficient reduction for sustainability.

I was in China last year and the Chinese government have reversed previous policy and are now taking steps to ‘encourage’ a growth in population.

But as I said, people will find even the suggestion of population control very difficult. I know it can’t practically be done short of global domination.

I did find it interesting (?) encountering a demonstration in the town centre the other day that many of those who said they were committed to saving the planet were there with families of three or more.

However you look at it that’s a big long term carbon footprint.

The best way to limit the size of families is to raise living standards, I think that's pretty much agreed by everyone. When you can be 99% certain your two children will grow to adulthood you stop having five or six children in case some of them die. Raised living standards also means you don't need to exist at subsistence level and you don't need those six children to help work your farm and look after you when you're old.

Educating girls has also been shown to raise living standards. They have better jobs, earn more, marry later and have children later. Birth control obviously also plays its part.

A lot of population specialists have challenged the UN figures and consider them to be too high and that peak population will be around 2050.

With nearly half of all countries having already reached the point where their birthrate is below replacement rate and another swathe very close to that point, I think the evidence favours those who consider the UN estimates too high.

I still believe that by the end of this century population figures will be stable or falling and by the end of the next century will have fallen significantly. To quote the UN itself Between 2019 and 2050, populations are projected to decrease by one per cent or more in 55 countries or areas, of which 26 may see a reduction of at least ten per cent. In China, for example, the population is projected to decrease by 31.4 million, or around 2.2 per cent, between 2019 and 2050.

The Unired Nations estimate that world population will top 11 billion (currently 9billion) by 2100.

The estimated sustainable human population, where consumption vs renewal of resources is roughly equal, is around 2 billion.

Even if there is a reduction in future it will be too slow to affect the issues we face.

I’m sorry I don’t know how to do links but typing “sustainable world population” into Google will give you a wealth of information on this topic.

I know most people will find the thought of limiting people’s right to children difficult if not repugnant. And most would find it a personally impossible scenario.

But I really don’t see any other long term solution to our destruction of the. planet.

Eglantine birthrates have fallen below replacement rate in many countries including most of Eastern and Western Europe and in Asia. 87 of the world's 188 countries are at replacement level or below.

The main area with above replacement level population rates are in sub-saharan Africa. worldpopulationreview.com/countries/total-fertility-rate/. Forecasts for peak population are falling already. Our grandchildren will probably live to see world population falling. The problem then will be the number of old people out numbering the young and how they can provide proper incomes and medical care.

We are already seeing that problem in this country with retirement ages being raised and older people encourage dto work beyond retirement age and hospitals and medical services struggling.