We've cut car use by 18,960 miles a year

[Shirley]

we're about to start having our milk delivered from the guy that delivers in our area anyway;

Tell me more, please! The two dairies I've spoken to, after seeing their vans in the area, only deliver to houses in villages and businesses. Even though their vans drive past the croft!!!!

Must dash now. Have to get the Wee 'Un.

He doesn't deliver to Insch... I asked him... BUT he knows of someone that does and will find his number for me.

[MikeM]

So I suppose you could same we've cut our milage too but that's only by a total change of lifestyle which isn;t for everybody.

And if peak oil and climate change predictions are even half correct? "Everybody" may find change forced on them...

if peak oil does hit then the changes to peoples lives will be so profound that the loss of the car will seem quite minor. However, it is only a theory and hasn't happened yet and people still have to get on with their lives.

[Stonehead]

people still have to get on with their lives.

And that's a large part of the problem. Too much focus on getting on with things now without considering the effects tomorrow, next week or next month, much less 10-20 years down the track.

But when you live much closer to the environment as we do (although not as much as people like Caithness Crofter), you soon realise that the years do pass very quickly and you'll be living with the consequences of your actions much sooner than you thought.

So the cypress someone unwisely planted eight years ago are now quite large and being blown onto the road (almost as I write!), while the vegetables beds we laid out and enriched four years ago are now providing us with vast amounts of food. The trees we planted last year and the year before are now six years closer to being harvested.

If we focused on getting on with our lives, we wouldn't be eating the quantity and quality that we do, nor would we have timber in six years, nor would the people who follow us have timber in 30, 50 or 100 years (we've planted for them too).

A little less expediency would go a long way.

[Annpan]

Well said stoney,

You can still get on with your life without destroying the planet... I have yet to work out how you stop living by recycling, saving fuel, being eco-concious.

It is a much purer life you lead when you are connected to the land, you just have more of an obvious and lasting effect on your surroundings... not like the majority in a city or suburbia.

[MikeM]

we live in a world so structured that most people don't have the luxury (or inclination) to think about anything beyond the next day.

[ina]

we live in a world so structured that most people don't have the luxury (or inclination) to think about anything beyond the next day.

It's not a luxury, it's a necessity. Yes, a lot of people are not inclined to get off their bums and be a little less lazy in their minds... Those who come after us will suffer the consequences. Of course, that doesn't bother those who are "not so inclined" at the moment.

[Annpan]

we live in a world so structured that most people don't have the luxury (or inclination) to think about anything beyond the next day.

That is an excuse not a reason... most people are too bloody minded and selfish to think beyond the next day. I don't think it is acceptable for people to carry on the way they have been, especially now that ALL the worlds leading scientist agree that we are wasting valuable resources.

At least those who choose not to cut back should admit that they are not willing to change their lifestyle, they'll get a short, sharp shock when they realise that it is inevitable and through either market forces or government intervention they HAVE to change their lifestyle.

[MikeM]

do all the worlds leading scientists agree we are wasting resources. As I said, peak oil is a theory and, to my knowledge, not a widely accepted one. I think you may be confusing peak oil with climate change, where the vast majority of climate scientists agree that it is happening.

[Wotta Wally]

Well said stoney....It is a much purer life you lead when you are connected to the land, you just have more of an obvious and lasting effect on your surroundings... not like the majority in a city or suburbia.

Interesting you say that Annpan. I had a discussion about this recently. I used to live in Kent and work in London. I was aware of the environmental issues and compared to my neighbours, quite green. Did my recycling bit, made careful organic purchases in Tescos etc. It is only now that I have moved down to Devon though living in a small rural village that I have suddenly realised that I was barely even scratching the surface when I was in Kent and feel positively embarassed that my previous efforts I considered green!!! Quite a few people I have mentioned this to have all agreed that moving out of the town does have a positive effect on you - you can see what is going on around you and are very much more "in touch". Added to that, lots more people around you are more environmentally aware so it makes "being green(er)" a lot easier.

Of course, this doesn't stop those around me going when I tell them about my latest efforts in recycling, removal of chemicals from my life, soapmaking, cheesemaking, buttermaking, dressmaking etc!!!!

I'd like to think of myself now as being "Lime Green Heading For Racing Green" rather than the insipid Apple White I used to be

[ina]

do all the worlds leading scientists agree we are wasting resources. As I said, peak oil is a theory and, to my knowledge, not a widely accepted one. I think you may be confusing peak oil with climate change, where the vast majority of climate scientists agree that it is happening.

Even the top heads at BP etc accept nowadays that oil is getting pretty short - and that there will be a time soon when it becomes inefficient to get the rest of it out! Why else would they want to invest in renewables? They aren't daft! And I don't think anybody here doesn't know the difference between peak oil and climate change...

As they say up here - we didn't come up the Clyde in a banana boat.

[MikeM]

these are your words:

"especially now that ALL the worlds leading scientist agree that we are wasting valuable resources. "

perhaps you can cite a source confirming that?

As for the major oil companies looking into other energy sources, well I'd say that's a good reason why we don't need to cut car usage.

[Annpan]

Blumin' 'eck, I wasn't trying to start anything here

I was of the understanding that every intelligent person in the world knew that we have limited resources... and yet we continue to increase demand of these finite sources. - am I mistaken?

I do know the difference between Peak oil and climate change, thankyou very much.

I am not to concerned about getting into an argument with you over this... especially since I have no idea what exactly your stand on the subject is... or are you just playing devils advocate?

[justskint]

Does anybody on this blog believe when oil peaks, civil unrest will take place?
The increasing use of land for renawables not being a viable option, short term it's forcing food prices upwards. Spiralling prices of plastics, fuel, higher shop prices, electricity and gas. The lower paid being first affected, probably having to use public transport if, having the spare cash enabling them to get to work or to a social event. The vast influx of low cost labour from Eastern Europe influenced and encouraged by government, employers and middle classes to drive down labour costs will in my opinion kick-start civil and racial unrest, this I fear is not too far in the future.

[MikeM]

my stand is that a lot of people don't have much option but to do the normal thing. Asking them to change something that is largely beyond their control, based upon nothing more than a theory, is very unfair. To then go on and call it an excuse is extremely harsh. You called them selfish and bloody minded and that their behaviour is "unacceptable", yet you offer no actual workable solution the their problems.
Just cos we, on here, wish to live a more simple and stripped down existence doesn't make it right to impose our lifestyle choices on others.

[Stonehead]

Erm, but you don't have to do the "normal" thing, even if you are living in a city.

I lived in London for quite a while, but I made deliberate choices to not eat packaged meals, to spend a bit of time growing veg (in window boxes when I lived in a flat), to not drive unless genuinely necessary, to buy from producers at markets (especially Spitalfields with all it's organic stuff), to not buy every gadget known to man, to turn my central heating down, to use low energy lights and so on.

It wasn't beyond my control to do those things instead of leading the "normal" life.

And it wasn't about peak oil or climate change either. It was about being aware of waste, about taking control where I could, about being frugal without being austere, and making as little impact as I could in my circumstances.

What it really comes down to is making deliberate, and yes sometimes difficult, choices instead of staying nestled in a cocoon of normalcy, expediency, and perceived convenience.

Finally, it's ironic to accuse people who've made the choices we have of imposing our lifestyle choices on others, when the "normal" consumer society is driven down our throats at every opportunity in all media and by all parties, business, consumers, government, the lot.

I don't see many ads extolling the delights of self-sufficiency, I don't see frugal living constantly extolled in mainstream cinema and broadcasting, I don't see the threadbare look being paraded as a virtue in the fashion magazines, and I don't see cycling posters promising women, speed and thrills on every billboard.

I suppose your next line will be that we're all thwarted Commies trying to take over the world under the guise of being caring hippies—that's usually what comes next.

Why is it so threatening when a handful of people say they believe less is actually more?