The simple fact is that when people work less they also consume less, their carbon footprint is smaller, but their quality of life is usually higher.

As I sit here and type my carbon footprint is higher than if I take the time off to drive across Europe?

26 thoughts on “Rilly?”

  1. “but their quality of life is usually higher.”

    The happy peasants united in song, praising the Dear Leader, as they toil in the fields.

  2. Lets compare people working now to say 150 years ago.
    Consuming less? Certainly working less hours.
    How about retirees – working less? Usually. Consuming less? Maybe, maybe not.

  3. That doesn’t pass the smell test. If no-one went on holiday, then the entire tourist industry would close, taking its CO2 emissions with it. Thus our per capita CO2 emission would drop.

    So CO2 emissions would only drop if we worked less if we just sat at home doing nothing. If we go anywhere that caters for non-locals, a proportion of the CO2 emissions required to keep that hotel/restaurant/shop/tourist attraction operating are attributable to us, while our CO2 emissions for our houses and everyday consumption are not reduced commensurately. Basically, if you go and stay in a hotel, you’re still heating your own house, plus the hotel is heated too.

  4. Bloke in Costa Rica

    It’s begging the question of why anyone in their right mind would give a shit how much plant food they’re generating. Probably my carbon footprint isn’t big enough, given that I don’t drive and live somewhere that doesn’t need heating or cooling. So every Earth Day I’m going to set fire to a load of old tyres to compensate.

  5. ‘their quality of life is usually higher’

    Why can these utter utter cunts not leave it to other people to decide for themselves in what fashion they find their quality of life?

    Richie you twat, you know you’re reading this, no way a man of your ego could avoid it: *I* think your quality of life would be better if you stopped throttle-wanking yourself into a spit-flecked gauleiter frenzy of control on your execrable blog, and put the hoover round, maybe took up a hobby.

  6. Not strictly on point, but I went by train to Norfolk last week and one of my trains stopped in Ely. Looked like a really nice little city with the cathedral and the small marina thing with the boats. I’m impressed from what was only a short train stop.

    I’d rather live there than in Downham Market, even if it meant downsizing to an unimpressive end terrace.

  7. We need to develop more high-grade biofuels. I’ve identified a liquid hydrocarbon of high energy content that’s got tremendous potential, for instance.

    Now we just need the whaling fleet… (hey, it’s renewable and organic, it must surely be good?)

  8. These ludicrous statements tend to rest on comparing surveys of people in the UK and people in, say, Zambia. If you ask the right questions the people in Zambia are ‘happier’.

    But these surveys are completely subjective and are comparing apples and oranges.

    If you asked people in the UK if they would be happier working less and explained what they could support on their now reduced by 25% income you would probably get a different answer.

    Any political statement which claims people are happier if they did something they haven’t already done voluntarily is almost certainly a load of bollocks peddled by people with a distinct agenda.

  9. Damn – I am working less than ever but consuming more than ever…what went wrong? Help me, Murph. But at least I no longer commute into London. There is enjoyable consumption and hateful consumption. I have swapped out the latter for the former.

  10. As usual, the concept that Murph seems to be struggling towards inventing was already defined about 150 years ago….They called it “utility”

  11. It’s a fallacy to believe when you retire less money is required (as you supposedly consume less). You suddenly discover that with so much time on your hands an income double that you enjoyed when employed is necessary. It’s why so many of my older friends are still working full time.

  12. I tend to drive 50 miles as a round to burn 1/2 a ton of coal in a steam railway engine on my days off.

    I’m guessing that doesn’t give me a good carbon footprint, but it’s great fun and steam engines sound great when working hard…

  13. “The simple fact is that when people work less they also consume less, their carbon footprint is smaller, but their quality of life is usually higher.”

    Must keep those plates spinning. It’s Green day today. Tomorrow it will be huge capital investment day (airports ‘n roads).

  14. Amazing. Looks like everything I learned about the relationship between ecological footprint (I assume he isn’t just interested in the carbon facet of sustainability) and economic development is completely wrong.

    Where do I sign up for his 0.2 lectures on sustainability?

  15. When I work less, fuel savings for future aircraft models are also reduced.
    Utter tosspottery as usual from the man.

  16. If I worked less I’d be at home more. The house is heated about 20C – 30C higher than work. Consume more gas & lecky at home.

  17. I’d rather live there than in Downham Market, even if it meant downsizing to an unimpressive end terrace.

    And before you know it, after everyone does it, you’ve got another Brighton.

  18. “when people work less they also consume less, their carbon footprint is smaller, but their quality of life is usually higher.”

    Maybe because people who don’t have to work are independently wealthy or don’t need to work.

    I certainly would have a poorer life if I worked and consumed less. Take your idiotic austerity green-socialism on that horse you rode in on and go back from whence you came.

    Come back when you’ve got something to convince us you are actually well read in politics and economics.

  19. @PeteC
    August 1, 2016 at 11:16 pm

    When I work less, fuel savings for future aircraft models are also reduced.
    Utter tosspottery as usual from the man.

    Wonderful. One thing to bear in mind is that not all expenditure has the same affect on the planet. I thought that it was obvious but I guess not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *