Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
rikkor
offlineMember
Instead of positioning the argument as global warming or climate change: Why not make the argument "Don't you think it would be better for everyone if 6 billion people took steps to stop polluting so much?"
What rational person would disagree with that? Who would say "Nah. Better for us and future generations to go on polluting willy-nilly." Oh, and incentivize countries and people for not polluting so much. Works better than punishing.
Yours, Rikkor (AKA, Mother Teresa, Jr.)
arrghgarry
offlineMember
Of course MR Rik ,or just eating less (meat)that would help (the western world that is).Global warming is massive business ,those wind towers every unit produced is twice the cost .and they only have a short life span .I think tv should stop at 12,.00 lights out at 1200 for advertising hoardings aircons set at 27C ..try to pass that legislation .aka in japanese is red
bonjonelson
offlineMember
My experience with Tokyo was that they are far advanced of most western countries with recycling. Bins everywhere had recylcing options - even in mcdonalds you had to separate out recyclable bits from your tray (presumably they recycle unwanted fries into next morning's hash browns).
AdrianJ
offlineMember
During my last visit, I did notice that the Japanese had also significantly turned down the aircon on all of their trains. However, I strongly suspect that this was purely to deny me any respite from the searing heat, thereby presenting my fellow commuters with a prime opportunity to laugh their tits off at the red faced lardy Gaijin, busy sweating his nads off in the corner. Midori in Japanese is Green.
ramblesnake
offlineMember
Perhaps, Rikkor, as the U.S per capita is the biggest polluter you could all do the decent thing. Better still, if all the world's gun owners could be forced to turn them on themselves it would solve quite a few problems (issues, for those under the age of 30)
The All New Jeni B
offlineMember
I read an article recently, in which a former radical Vegan and Climate Scientist explained why he and his family had resumed consumption of meat. His rationale being that if we consume more meat, there will be less methane released, and therefore less damage being done to the environment.
The obvious, and oft repeated, solutions are to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, halt deforestation, recycle, reuse etc.
But a major contributor to climate change is population growth, yet this is never fully addressed for fear of denying people their apparent "right" to have children. No one should be suggesting compulsory sterilisation, and it is up to individuals whether or not they have children, and if so, how many, but what about teaching, worldwide, the lesson of moderation?
If everyone practised moderation in all things, perhaps this might help with the solution.
the coarse whisperer
offlineMember
What rational person would disagree with that? Who would say "Nah. Better for us and future generations to go on polluting willy-nilly."
Sounds good to me. There's a trade-off between growth and the inessential fripperies it brings, y'know like living on more than a dollar a day, dying after you're 35 or not in childbirth, and the inescapable side-effect of industrialisation - pollution. I'd pay £10 to see anyone who spouts this pious green crap to tell a Chittagong factory worker his entire future progeny should be condemned to poverty because they love the pandas so very much - Oh and would you and everyone you know please die out, you can sort out the details amongst yourselves as I'd rather not know about it, thanks!
fernandomando
offlineMember
Let us now campaign for everyone to eat only fruit that has already fallen from the tree. Let us weave our own clothes from human and dog hair, make crude musical instruments and sit around camp fires in fields singing revolutionary songs. Let us not leave a footprint on this planet bigger than that which our own boots will fill. For indeed, friends, if we do this, a veritable parliament of salvation and friendship awaits. It is THE BIG ISSUE, PLEASE of our time.
ramblesnake
offlineMember
I agree with you Jeni, in so far as population is the main cause. Seems obvious, but not to most governments nowadays and teaching's not the the answer when you've got Muslims, Catholics and Jews all trying to populate the earth with their own.
Now it's all must have more young people to support the ageing population. All I can say is, I'm OK thanks, though I'd be a bit better with a bit more space to move about in and you can't keep on increasing the numbers, there has to be a limit.
The All New Jeni B
offlineMember
This is true Ram, when particular cultures are intent on dominating all others, there's little you can do to persuade them otherwise.
On the other hand, while I will concede that something must be done about our dependency on the ever diminishing reserves of fossil fuels, are we as a species really so arrogant as to believe that this planet that has existed for billions of years can only be harmed or healed by us?
rikkor
offlineMember
Ram, why is Our Garry such a racist, but you get to blame Muslims, Catholics and Jews for everything that is wrong in this world? But, if everyone converting to Methodisism is the solution to all our problems, I am willing to give it a try.
(Oh, and nice work putting the Jews in there; you noticed that they really are to blame for everything bad when you scratch the surface just a little bit.)
arrghgarry
offlineMember
Jeni ,did you see the Carlin clip ,he puts GW bootifully into perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOBm2J4tn0
FormerlyAlOPecia
offlineMember
Global climate change is explained by the physics we understood over 100 years ago - in 1896 the Swedish Physical Chemist Svante Arrhenius wrote "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression". Carbonic acid is CO2 in the atmosphere. It really is simple physics.
It is true that most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doesn't come from human activity - but when it was at pre-industrial levels of 280ppm it was easily recycled and kept at that level by fixation through rock weathering and photosynthesis - however all of the carbon dioxide now present in the atmosphere (350ppm i.e.an extra 70ppm), has come from the combustion of fossil fuels, never mind the much more powerful greenhouse gas methane arising from increased livestock production. The planetary mechanisms cannot keep up with the extra CO2 and CH4. Population growth is the elephant in the room, but principally because the growing population aspires to emulate our wasteful western lifestyles.
Climatology is all about long term statistical probabilites, and the colder winters we now experience were predicted 15 years ago, and the more intense rain also.
I predict that you are going to end your days as an ignorant fool.
Sinnick
offlineMember
Just on a point of fact, but a religion is not the same as a "race" (whatever that means, precisely, homo sapiens doesn't have any subspecies). And some religions actively encourage reproduction and some encourage practical contraceptive measures.
The bottom line is that if the human species doesn't resolve its overpopulation soon (and vastly accelerating demand for resources), something nasty must happen. I don't know if it will be a war over resources, or more likely some nasty virus that we can't stop in time. Not this year, but certainly this century. The planet itself and most of the life on it will adapt. We need to adapt now.
More fun, vicar ?
JayGee
offlineMember
The facts are these.
1. The earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years. Are we really so self important as to think that we could have such an influence?
2. Oil is running out and estimates are that by 2050 there won't be a lot left. Doesn't this date somewhat clash with world targets to be reliant on renewable and other sources of energy?
3. Don't you think that if we really were having such an impact, governments would say, 'fuck the oil, we've got to act now'. No, they don't because the remaining oil represents billions and billions in revenue every year.
ramblesnake
offlineMember
Rikkor, yes I admit to being religionist. I'm against anyone who believes they've got a book which is written by God, therefore it's impossible to argue with.
You often mention the Jews. Are you one yourself or is it just the usual paternalistic American concern for the state of Isreal? The only difference I can see between Israel and the Crusader states, including their lack of any right to exist, is that for long periods the Crusaders learnt to live with their Muslim neighbours.
JayGee
offlineMember
Al - yes I am absolutely serious. By self-importance I mean that human kind thinks it owns this planet. We have been on this earth for a tiny fraction of its existence and there is evidence to show that many ice ages and their opposites have come and gone, so why are we so self-important to believe that we are the sole cause of a bit of warming? Because that's what we are told and therefore most people believe it.
We are not moving to renewable energy sources because we want to save the planet, we are doing it because we have to, because oil won't be an option in 40 or 50 years. But not until every single last drop has been pumped out of the ground. If global warming were such a threat, there would be more action. There wouldn't be half hearted agreements to cut emissions, which countries can then 'trade' out of - what the fuck is that about? If we need to cut emissions then let's do it, not allow countries to pay money in order to shirk their responsibilities.
This is a carefully controlled programme to transition to a post-oil economy and to make sure rich countries can realise their oil assets and look good for 'saving the world' in the process. Climate change is a convenient vehicle to hide behind. It would have happened anyway, with or without human intervention.
Golgo is right about Russia and the Middle East. Just one lake in Russia (Baikal) holds a fifth of the world's fresh water (an increasingly scarce resource), and Russia has already turned off gas supplies periodically to other countries. But you can't take on Russia to secure future resources, too risky, so you have to look elsewhere. But where.....? Oh yes, Iran has massive reserves of oil and gas. Isn't it convenient that we have 'saved' a nation on one side of Iran and are in the process of saving another? Iran, the country that is 'building nuclear weapons' and 'stoning women to death'. I would imagine Iran's weapons are of the same 'stealth' type that Saddam had.
FormerlyAlOPecia
offlineMember
JayGee for Christ Sake THINK. There is no biophysical link whatsoever between what we think about ownership of the planet and the physical consequences of what we do. It is just physics, and I am very sorry that you appear to be incapable of understanding that.
Yes we need to move to renewables anyway, but this doesn't negate the fact of global climate change.
the coarse whisperer
offlineMember
I might have hoped that Julian Simon had comprehensively dealt with this malthusian resource crisis idea years ago, but the fact that human ingenuity increases resources seems to be a hard thing to sell. Anyway, climate change worries me a lot less than the horrifying political and economic "solutions" that are being peddled to fix it.
Oxbridge
offlineMember
Ahem.
Do we control everything that happens on Earth? Of course not. Do we have more influence on it than every other species put together and have we changed its appearance more in the past 200 years than in any time frame of about 2 million years ever, possibly excepting the ones leading to the previous mass extinctions? Quite obviously yes. Anyone coming back even from Georgian times would be stunned to see what the world looks like now.
So climates have always changed and ices ages have come and gone - sure, over the course of millions of years. Actually we're still in one FWIW. Unfortunately this has not occured when 7 billion humans were all trying to live or attain a resource-intensive lifestyle. Uless you're implying that if climate change dictates that most of the world should starve so be it, I don't see where this leads us.
What environmentalism we have about us now is human-centric and personally I think that's fine. We want to 'save the planet' for ourselves and our descendants, not because we are so arrogant as to think it will cease to exist or so perfect as to care about every last unknown species. That's an honest recognition that humans rule this planet and it isn't going to change.
Finally, the idea that we will only start thinking about renewables when the last drop of oil and gas is gone is absurd. It's happening right now; that's a stone cold fact that my work as an industry journalist teaches me every day. The pace of develooment in solar power,for instance, is quite staggering. Industry has long since 'got' it. Even those like Exxon which scoffed away renewables just a few years ago.
Naturally, as increasingly scare resources get more expensive, some will make hay while the sun shines and those who can afford them most will pay for them and others will go without. It's not right but neither is it some global conspiracy, just politics as it always has been and probablhy always will be.
You must log in to post.
