Greens enemies of liberty

CJhaughey

A recent article in the Guardian has more than a ring of truth about it.
I have personally come across many of the type of behaviours written about, and although I would consider myself to be environmentally aware the type of language used in many green circles makes me uncomfortable.
has anyone else had experience with this?

gerky

A lot of what's in that article is a stretch to say the least.

In all walks of life your going to get people who want to take advantage of a situation to gain control or power and the environment is probably no different.

One person he refers to is James Hansen, what he said was oil executives who are found to have purposely put out false information should be put on trial, and I have to say I think he's right.

In the past cigarette company's did the same they funded certain scientists to produce research that backed their stance that cigarettes were not bad for you and in the more recent past they funded scientists to backup their claims that second hand smoke wasn't harmful.
Should this be allowed? personally I don't think purposely spreading false information on anything as important as health or the environment should be let go on and I fully include both sides of the debate in that.

I have no problem with people who have different views than mine on climate change nor have I a problem with any legitimate research done on climate change no matter which side it backs, just as long as its legitimate.

I am very strongly against limiting of freedom in anyway or any invasion in privacy but I don't think that freedom should extend to allowing people to do whatever they want regarding the environment just because they don't believe it does any harm.

I genuinely haven't come across much of what's claimed in that article but as I said already there will always be people who will use whatever they can to gain power or money.

But these are just my views on it

taram

I've met people who've shunned my ''environmental credits'' due to the fact I was drinking coke from a plastic bottle in a meeting. I think all aspects of society have a pecking order, and over zealous people in it, no matter what issue it is.

I think a lot of the angry by the environmental side about climate denial is similar to the fight over creationism in the US, it's a topic people are passionate about, and both sides think they have the ultimate evidence, and are prepared to defend it with strong language and accusations. Ultimately both sides are as bad as each other, and should calm down and have a cuppa

lostinsuperfunk

I also dislike this tendency towards authoritarianism in some of the green commentators. However, I would classify several of the people and groups mentioned in the article as either being pretty close to the lunatic fringe (Monbiot) or pushing a different agenda but using environmental issues as a convenient front (BNP, Optimum Population Trust).

Extreme left and right wing groups have always hijacked other causes in order to promulgate their views.

gerky

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

Extreme left and right wing groups have always hijacked other causes in order to promulgate their views.

Yea where there's a situation to be taken advantage of there'll always be people to do it.

Jimkel

taram wrote: »

I I think all aspects of society have a pecking order, and over zealous people in it, no matter what issue it is.

Yup. People suck.:)

Kama

Pretty hyperbolic article, the phrasings amusingly rhetorical:

Environmentalists are innately hostile to freedom of speech...
Environmentalism is instinctively and relentlessly illiberal...If you believe in freedom, you must reject it.

So...I'm confused...do Green people hate freedom, because their freedom-hating ideology causes them to hate freedom, or due to them being 'innately' freedom-hating?

The basic point of the pre-dominance of guilt tactics in Green issues is a valid critique, its a regrettable and unhelpful trend; but hardly the 'Threat to Freedom' ushering in a New Dark Age, more likely its that nasty old Christian ideology rearing its ugly head of guilt-based morality again...pernicious stuff that, but again hardly unique.

As to the authoritarianism, well, its there. When people think they know whats right, imposing it on other people often seems tempting, whether we love free markets or population control. People suck, indeed.

jawlie

Kama wrote: »

The basic point of the pre-dominance of guilt tactics in Green issues is a valid critique, its a regrettable and unhelpful trend; but hardly the 'Threat to Freedom' ushering in a New Dark Age, more likely its that nasty old Christian ideology rearing its ugly head of guilt-based morality again...pernicious stuff that, but again hardly unique.

As to the authoritarianism, well, its there. When people think they know whats right, imposing it on other people often seems tempting, whether we love free markets or population control. People suck, indeed.

Some humans have always had the desire to boss others about. With Christianity and Communism/Socialism, the parallels are obvious. But now that we are living in a post Christian era, where communism & socialism are no longer taken seriously, to be able to boss others about in the name of the environment is all too evidently tempting for some.

If the environment is in jeopardy, we are not going to solve our problems by all becoming vegetarian, abandoning cars in favour of bicycles and relying on windmills to power our businesses, factories and houses. The more I think about it, the only way we are going to solve our problems in through technology and innovation. The bossy boots who invoke the environment as their excuse to boss everyone else around will have to find a new cause which will give them a new excuse to indulge in their hobby.

Macha

Have to come in on the other side and say that environmental issues will never be resolved through simply allowing people to do whatever they want. We've had a liberal democracy for the last 80 years and look what damage has been done to the environment. For example:
-everyone who wanted a one-off house in Ireland got it
-everyone who wanted a big car got it
-everyone who wanted to fly everywhere and anywhere did.

As a result, we've literally built ourselves into a high energy, fossil fuel dependent corner. Was that freedom really worth it? Ask the person who commutes 5 hours a day and is having to deal with higher costs on fuel and heating that lovely big house.

Exaggeration, maybe but the bottom line is we have enough forces in this society exploiting our natural instincts by pushing us to consume excessively (not that I think its necessarily making anyone much happier) I don't think moves in the opposite direction are a bad thing at all.

In addition, I don't think our society makes people sufficiently aware of the impacts of their decisions. That bottle of coke, the €2 chicken in Tesco, the 5 weekend breaks to Europe, the constant trips to by cheap crap in Penneys. There are consequences of all these things that are very conveniently hidden away from the consumers eyes.

Jawlie - technology & innovation will help to an extent but the easiest & most simple thing is behaviour modification. This is a tool that is open to each and every one of us and some help from the government goes a long way (ie NOT introducing extra charges at Park & Ride facilities). Waiting around for technology to come and save us from ourselves is quite possibly the worst plan of action IMO. Example:

So someone invents a car that runs on air. Woohoo. That car will still take 2 hours to get from Wicklow into town. That car will still be causing deaths on the road. That car will still be an anti-social and exclusive means of transport, only available to those who will be able to afford it, thus excluding the less well off. That car will still cause congestion. That car will still be contributing to the obesity epidemic and reduced exercise, as has been shown in reports. That car will not be of use to those who cannot drive - youth, disabled, elderly.

What no one seems to be willing to accept is that technology is not the only answer. Bottom line: we have to change and if people are too blind to see that, then I'm all for making them do it.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

What no one seems to be willing to accept is that technology is not the only answer. Bottom line: we have to change and if people are too blind to see that, then I'm all for making them do it.

I see the way forward being a like a victorian lifestyle with 21st century technology.
By which I mean working local, shopping local for locally produced goods.
Buying consumer goods that last and only when needed, repair older stuff - as the economics will shift to make repairing viable again.

Want not! Waste not!

Such a lifestyle will of course, be much more restrictive in personal freedom, as in only the rich will be able to afford fly to a foreign destination etc. The future cost of oil will make that a certainty.

jawlie

taconnol wrote: »

As a result, we've literally built ourselves into a high energy, fossil fuel dependent corner. Was that freedom really worth it? Ask the person who commutes 5 hours a day and is having to deal with higher costs on fuel and heating that lovely big house.

The answer resoundingly has to be yes, it was and is worth it. We have developed to an age where life expectancy is longer than it has ever been before, dentistry advances mean most of us don't have to have all our teeth extracted in mid life and wear dentures, virtually anyone can afford to travel abroad, our houses are better built and more efficient and warmer and more comfortable and so on and so on. The fact is that living in modern times is more comfortable and more agreeable than at any time in our history.

Certainly, we face problems, but would the problems be any less if we were all still living in caves or as we all did in Victorian times?

taconnol wrote: »

In addition, I don't think our society makes people sufficiently aware of the impacts of their decisions. That bottle of coke, the €2 chicken in Tesco, the 5 weekend breaks to Europe, the constant trips to by cheap crap in Penneys. There are consequences of all these things that are very conveniently hidden away from the consumers eyes.

There are also consequences from not buying that most disgusting of drinks, Coke, of not buying chicken in tesco etc also. Why not tell us what the consequences you think are which make these things so wicked, rather than just hinting at the dark forces which are unleashed with every purchase? Perhaps there are also consequences which are also beneficial to buying them also?

taconnol wrote: »

That car will still be causing deaths on the road. That car will still be an anti-social and exclusive means of transport, only available to those who will be able to afford it, thus excluding the less well off. That car will still cause congestion. That car will still be contributing to the obesity epidemic and reduced exercise, as has been shown in reports. That car will not be of use to those who cannot drive - youth, disabled, elderly.

.

Are you saying that cars should be banned because not everyone can afford them? I’m not sure what the point is you are trying to make about cars, but it seems that you are unhappy with cars being available to some because some others can’t afford them?

If so, it seems to confirm my belief that many people who have hitched up to the environmental movement are disappointed socialists who see the environmental movement as the back door to imposing their socialist policies on the rest of us. Indeed, your last line is chilling in its implications that you would force the rest of us to do what you think is the right thing for us to do, even if we disagree with you.

taconnol wrote: »

Bottom line: we have to change and if people are too blind to see that, then I'm all for making them do it.

djpbarry

jawlie wrote: »

...our houses are better built and more efficient...

You must be ****ing joking?

AngryHippie

Bang on the money there DJP, I seriously doubt many of the timber framed estates will still be serviceable in 150 years time, compared to some of the victorian era houses that are dotted around the country, While they might need some roof and chimney maintainance, But they are still there, and with a little bit of modification they can be just as eco-friendly as any CIF promoted, cowboy built estate house. Its all about design life.:D

Macha

jawlie wrote: »

The answer resoundingly has to be yes, it was and is worth it. We have developed to an age where life expectancy is longer than it has ever been before, dentistry advances mean most of us don't have to have all our teeth extracted in mid life and wear dentures, virtually anyone can afford to travel abroad, our houses are better built and more efficient and warmer and more comfortable and so on and so on. The fact is that living in modern times is more comfortable and more agreeable than at any time in our history.

Certainly, we face problems, but would the problems be any less if we were all still living in caves or as we all did in Victorian times?

OK you seem to be confusing my criticism for Ireland's development over the last 20 years with development in general. I'm not anti-development/modernisation, I'm anti the brainless 'development for the sake of development' that we've experienced since the early '90s. We didn't have to go down the route we did, there were alternatives. To use the usual examples, Sweden & Denmark have all the comforts of modern life and don't have the silly mess of urban planning and utter dependency on the car that we now have.

The irony is, that people in these countries now have more freedom. Excellent public transport systems mean they don't have to agonise over the impossible decisions of weighing up an affordable house against a 4 hour daily commute. Their energy prices are incredibly low because their government invested in CHP & district heating continually over that last 30 years, etc, etc.

Like the others said, our houses are of an atrocious quality and I kinda feel sorry for people who have bought shoddy properties over the last 10 years and are now facing huge heating bills. They were screwed & they didn't know it.

jawlie wrote: »

There are also consequences from not buying that most disgusting of drinks, Coke, of not buying chicken in tesco etc also. Why not tell us what the consequences you think are which make these things so wicked, rather than just hinting at the dark forces which are unleashed with every purchase? Perhaps there are also consequences which are also beneficial to buying them also?

Just read the book 'Not on the Label' or 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' (more relevant to the US). Thanks to people like Jamie Oliver, I think people are more aware of the consequences of the €2 chicken. Non-existant animal welfare, increased use of antibiotics and food scares:. Foot-in-mouth and BSE were not accidents-they were a direct result of our overly industrialised food system. Buying apples from New Zealand in March? It's total madness. We want everything, now. We're like greedy little children who can't wait for anything anymore. I think the lines from Kavanagh is very, very apt:

"We have tested and tasted too much lover,
Through a chink too wide there comes no wonder".

We don't get excited by the arrival of the summer fruits. Strawberry season, what's that? Kids don't even know that carrots grow in the ground these days. Mango, Papaya, beans flown in straight from Kenya (a country with serious water issues) It's just an awful, awful situation. And all in the name of 'Consumer Choice'? 'Individual Freedom'? Come on, we're not talking about the right to vote or the right to free speech here. When did it become someone's constitutional right to eat kumquats any day they wish?

Then let's talk about the damage this has done to rural communities and farming families. The ridiculous power held by companies such as Tesco have forced small farmers out of business and ruined families. Large monocrop farms that are not good for biodiversity & are heavily dependent on imported fertility (ie fossil-fuel based fertiliser) and the use of pesticides (more bad news for biodiversity and more fossil fuels) As Pollan puts it, we are sipping petroleum.

I mean, we know the world does not have sufficient resources to allow everyone to live like we do. Heck, 2 billion people live on less than $2/day so we can't even provide the basics for people as it is. Why exactly are we holding up our way of life as the ideal?? We are already starting to rue it as Chindia tries to attain our 'quality' of life & is increasing demand for meat, causing fuel & food prices to shoot up.

Read about the farmers in India who are committing suicide because the nearby Coca Cola factory has caused the local aquifer to drop to an unsustainable level. Or the school children in Azerbaijan who are forced out of school into the cotton fields to pick cotton so 16 year old Sorcha can go to Penneys and buy a t-shirt for €1. I know this all sounds a bit woolly and anti-globalisation but I think people really need to think about their everyday purchases. There are consequences. It's about educating yourself (not you personally jawlie..).

jawlie wrote: »

Are you saying that cars should be banned because not everyone can afford them? I’m not sure what the point is you are trying to make about cars, but it seems that you are unhappy with cars being available to some because some others can’t afford them?

No no, what I'm saying is that technology on its own is not going to solve everything.

jawlie wrote: »

If so, it seems to confirm my belief that many people who have hitched up to the environmental movement are disappointed socialists who see the environmental movement as the back door to imposing their socialist policies on the rest of us. Indeed, your last line is chilling in its implications that you would force the rest of us to do what you think is the right thing for us to do, even if we disagree with you.

It is people (I use that in the general sense & include myself) in developed countries like Ireland that are being selfish & forcing other countries into serious difficulties, both economic and ecological. Yet when I point out that this is unfair, I am accused of wanting to reduce people's freedom?

To be honest, I find the fact that we are going down this foolish, dangerous path of fossil fuel dependency and over-consumption, all the while singing about 'rights' and 'freedom' even more chilling.

Sorry that was a bit ranty

jawlie

taconnol wrote: »

OK you seem to be confusing my criticism for Ireland's development over the last 20 years with development in general. I'm not anti-development/modernisation, I'm anti the brainless 'development for the sake of development' that we've experienced since the early '90s. We didn't have to go down the route we did, there were alternatives. To use the usual examples, Sweden & Denmark have all the comforts of modern life and don't have the silly mess of urban planning and utter dependency on the car that we now have.

The irony is, that people in these countries now have more freedom. Excellent public transport systems mean they don't have to agonise over the impossible decisions of weighing up an affordable house against a 4 hour daily commute. Their energy prices are incredibly low because their government invested in CHP & district heating continually over that last 30 years, etc, etc.

Like the others said, our houses are of an atrocious quality and I kinda feel sorry for people who have bought shoddy properties over the last 10 years and are now facing huge heating bills. They were screwed & they didn't know it.


Just read the book 'Not on the Label' or 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' (more relevant to the US). Thanks to people like Jamie Oliver, I think people are more aware of the consequences of the €2 chicken. Non-existant animal welfare, increased use of antibiotics and food scares:. Foot-in-mouth and BSE were not accidents-they were a direct result of our overly industrialised food system. Buying apples from New Zealand in March? It's total madness. We want everything, now. We're like greedy little children who can't wait for anything anymore. I think the lines from Kavanagh is very, very apt:

"We have tested and tasted too much lover,
Through a chink too wide there comes no wonder".

We don't get excited by the arrival of the summer fruits. Strawberry season, what's that? Kids don't even know that carrots grow in the ground these days. Mango, Papaya, beans flown in straight from Kenya (a country with serious water issues) It's just an awful, awful situation. And all in the name of 'Consumer Choice'? 'Individual Freedom'? Come on, we're not talking about the right to vote or the right to free speech here. When did it become someone's constitutional right to eat kumquats any day they wish?

Then let's talk about the damage this has done to rural communities and farming families. The ridiculous power held by companies such as Tesco have forced small farmers out of business and ruined families. Large monocrop farms that are not good for biodiversity & are heavily dependent on imported fertility (ie fossil-fuel based fertiliser) and the use of pesticides (more bad news for biodiversity and more fossil fuels) As Pollan puts it, we are sipping petroleum.

I mean, we know the world does not have sufficient resources to allow everyone to live like we do. Heck, 2 billion people live on less than $2/day so we can't even provide the basics for people as it is. Why exactly are we holding up our way of life as the ideal?? We are already starting to rue it as Chindia tries to attain our 'quality' of life & is increasing demand for meat, causing fuel & food prices to shoot up.

Read about the farmers in India who are committing suicide because the nearby Coca Cola factory has caused the local aquifer to drop to an unsustainable level. Or the school children in Azerbaijan who are forced out of school into the cotton fields to pick cotton so 16 year old Sorcha can go to Penneys and buy a t-shirt for €1. I know this all sounds a bit woolly and anti-globalisation but I think people really need to think about their everyday purchases. There are consequences. It's about educating yourself (not you personally jawlie..).




No no, what I'm saying is that technology on its own is not going to solve everything.



It is people (I use that in the general sense & include myself) in developed countries like Ireland that are being selfish & forcing other countries into serious difficulties, both economic and ecological. Yet when I point out that this is unfair, I am accused of wanting to reduce people's freedom?

To be honest, I find the fact that we are going down this foolish, dangerous path of fossil fuel dependency and over-consumption, all the while singing about 'rights' and 'freedom' even more chilling.

Sorry that was a bit ranty

I have to say I couldn't agree with your more about most of this post, and I think it is incredible to see asparagus from Peru and mange tout from Kenya in our shops. And the flower industry in Kenya, supposed to supply now 1 in 3 of the worlds cut flowers, is notorious for taking all the water upstream leaving the small farmers downstream dry. As for strawberries out of season, have you ever had the misfortune to taste them? No flavour whatever.

I often wonder who busy those things which have no taste at all - you'd almost be better looking at a picture and eating nothing.

But by in large our lives are immeasurably better now than they have been. Sure, some commute for a couple of hours by car, but compared to the 90% of the worlds population who have to walk for water every day, that probably seems like a luxury. Sure Ireland has not been very good at planning for the many, seeming to prefer in the past to plan for the one who gives the biggest bribe to the most influential politician. It seems we still vote back those same politicians time after time. What do we do?

auerillo

AngryHippie wrote: »

Bang on the money there DJP, I seriously doubt many of the timber framed estates will still be serviceable in 150 years time, compared to some of the victorian era houses that are dotted around the country, While they might need some roof and chimney maintainance, But they are still there, and with a little bit of modification they can be just as eco-friendly as any CIF promoted, cowboy built estate house. Its all about design life.:D

I don;t think anyone is suggesting that "cowboy built houses" are good things. But if you are seriously suggesting that the majority of the population now live in houses that are worse that the majority of the polulation did at any time in history, then the facts just don;t support you. Most houses now ahve indoor bathrooms and lavatories, most have heating, most have electric light, and most have warm beds and bedding. Compare that to, say, 50 years ago, or 150, years ago, or 300 years ago.

For example, in victorian times, the houses of the period which you claim to admire, what sort of conditions did the factory workers live in? Or the farm labourers? Or the miners? Or the unemployed?

It beggars belief that anyone would claim that the majority of the population lived in mroe comfortable houses in victorian times to the year 2008, in ireland.

Kama

I'm neither a fan of retro-romanticism nor technological cornucopianism; they both smack of a semi-religious faith in the outcomes produced by technological progress/regress/whatever, which doesn't seem justified.

Hoping that technology, market, or whatever will automatically produce a winning result seems akin to 'Faith-based policy'. It may well, but depending on this assumption is a gamble, but a palatable one, since it appears to remove the uncomfortable requirement for responsibility and action.

Auerillo wrote:

Compare that to, say, 50 years ago, or 150, years ago, or 300 years ago.

Yes, we have an increased standard of living, and a concomitantly increased energy consumption. The question remains what level of living standard we could sustain with a reduced energy load. The world economy in recent globalization has structured around a premise of cheap transport, and cheap energy generally, which no longer appears 'wise use', either in beancounter-accounting terms, or in more ecological paradigms. What will our energy costs be in 1,5 or 10 years? How can we best prepare for possible future scenarios?


On housing and comparisons, its consistent to claim that more people have access to housing, while conceding that the housing stock in many places has declined in quality relative to the better-built of earlier eras. Whether we are comparing apples to apples, or to oranges, then becomes the issue. Do we want to compare 'cowboy' build with a PassivHaus, a run-down mud hut with a well-built Cob house, or what? Comparing with the past seems less pertinent than comparison with other countries development experiences.

In the home sector the easiest efficiency savings are with insulation. Buildings standards during the boom have been a cruel joke with a delayed punchline of deficient R-values and steadily increasing heating costs, which is just one example of the short-term laissez-faire approach leading to less than optimal outcomes, deferring costs on. If 'liberty' is a lack of building standards and planning, and 'tyranny' the presence of the same, I'd be tempted to vote for a tyrant...But as taconnel says, this dichotomy is false; the level of personal freedom provided by good planning and a sound infrastructure appears higher, and crucially is more equitably distributed, an aspect of freedom the market-liberal account of freedom tends to lay less emphasis on.

auerillo

Kama wrote: »

I'm neither a fan of retro-romanticism nor technological cornucopianism; they both smack of a semi-religious faith in the outcomes produced by technological progress/regress/whatever, which doesn't seem justified.

Hoping that technology, market, or whatever will automatically produce a winning result seems akin to 'Faith-based policy'. It may well, but depending on this assumption is a gamble, but a palatable one, since it appears to remove the uncomfortable requirement for responsibility and action.



Yes, we have an increased standard of living, and a concomitantly increased energy consumption. The question remains what level of living standard we could sustain with a reduced energy load. The world economy in recent globalization has structured around a premise of cheap transport, and cheap energy generally, which no longer appears 'wise use', either in beancounter-accounting terms, or in more ecological paradigms. What will our energy costs be in 1,5 or 10 years? How can we best prepare for possible future scenarios?


On housing and comparisons, its consistent to claim that more people have access to housing, while conceding that the housing stock in many places has declined in quality relative to the better-built of earlier eras. Whether we are comparing apples to apples, or to oranges, then becomes the issue. Do we want to compare 'cowboy' build with a PassivHaus, a run-down mud hut with a well-built Cob house, or what? Comparing with the past seems less pertinent than comparison with other countries development experiences.

In the home sector the easiest efficiency savings are with insulation. Buildings standards during the boom have been a cruel joke with a delayed punchline of deficient R-values and steadily increasing heating costs, which is just one example of the short-term laissez-faire approach leading to less than optimal outcomes, deferring costs on. If 'liberty' is a lack of building standards and planning, and 'tyranny' the presence of the same, I'd be tempted to vote for a tyrant...But as taconnel says, this dichotomy is false; the level of personal freedom provided by good planning and a sound infrastructure appears higher, and crucially is more equitably distributed, an aspect of freedom the market-liberal account of freedom tends to lay less emphasis on.

I'm not sure anyone would own up to being a fan of either retro-romanticism or technological cornucopianism. When I was thinking of modern housing to that of yesteryear, I was thinking of the labourers cottages and slum dwellings of yesteryear associated with the working classes, and comparing in my mind the houses lived in by today's equivalent of the working classes. Without doubt, in relation to housing, things have got better.

Whether or not technology will find new solutions is not in doubt - technology will always find new solutions, its just a matter of will technology find the right solutions.

While I am not a retro-romanticism nor technological cornucopianism, I am also not unduly pessimistic about our future. Certainly not when compared to the ecological doom sayers. As has been pointed out elsewhere, if we really are on the road to ecological disaster for the planet, then it seems that no action we take can really reverse that. The real problem is that there are too many people on the planet, and the population is set to almost double in the next 75 years. Is it politically possible to halt that advance? Or is it politically possible to stop us all living the "20th century lifestyle"?

Thats a condrum no amount of tinkering about with low energy lightbulbs and driving smaller cars slower can hide.

Kama

auerillo wrote:

I'm not sure anyone would own up to being a fan of either retro-romanticism or technological cornucopianism.

I'll freely admit to having been both.

Whether or not technology will find new solutions is not in doubt - technology will always find new solutions, its just a matter of will technology find the right solutions.

Depends what problems we pose, and what outcomes we want. I don't believe in ascribing intention to technology...

As has been pointed out elsewhere, if we really are on the road to ecological disaster for the planet, then it seems that no action we take can really reverse that.

Aka, if the ship's sinking, who cares, it doesn't matter anyway?
I relate this view to pessimism; by which I mean, when I think like this I feel more helpless, on the 'its useless why bother trying' lines. I've found this not to work in my personal life, and try to extend that to other stuffs.

The real problem is that there are too many people on the planet, and the population is set to almost double in the next 75 years. Is it politically possible to halt that advance? Or is it politically possible to stop us all living the "20th century lifestyle"?

Thats more than one problem. One is the straight Malthusian population issue of population overshoot, one is the per capita resource use of a 'Western' lifestyle. Population control has classically focused on the non-white 'Developing' world, rather than the 'Developed', with far higher consumption per capita.

While the political feasibility of controlling world population may or may not be possible, and calls to mind all sorts of ideas best discussed on the Conspiracy Theory boards, or catastrophist scenarios such as DieOff, controlling our own behaviour certainly is. Competition and the market, I think, may show that whatever about the political possibility for a lower energy lifestyle, the enforcement will be, and already is, economic.

AngryHippie

Well I was really referring to the durability of the buildings, As the construction of a modern houses have similar amounts of energy consumed by their construction, the net effect on the environment can be reduced by increasing the durability of the house, no ? So if a timber and masonry house produced by cowboy A has a design life of 50 years, but is considered to be unsafe, unusable or obsolete within that, But a stone house us still serviceable after 250 years, How could a "modern" solution turn out to be more efficient.... or are we talking about building and knocking as we need them as being a sustainable strategy ?

I'm not saying that all houses should be made out of stone, and designed to last for 250 years, I'm just saying that even since planning regulations have been enforced in this country, the durability of many of the houses on the market will not justify their construction in environmental terms. If you're not gonna build it to last, build it entirely from timber and lock up some carbon for a bit. It is a bit of a pity that at the peak of housing construction in Ireland that there has not been some more attention paid to the lifespan of suburban houses, It might even be the case that the resources will not be available in the future to tackle housing on that scale again, although thats one for the conspiracy theorists and saucepan for headgear brigade.

It beggars belief that anyone would claim that the majority of the population lived in mroe comfortable houses in victorian times to the year 2008, in ireland.

Your words not mine, I never even suggested such a thing. I just pointed out that they were of such stout design and construction that they are still around, and can be refitted and renovated to modern specifications without the time and energy involved in major demolition or massive amounts of brick, mortar, stone or concrete being wasted. Take a gawk at the UCD Nova building if you don't believe me.

auerillo

Kama wrote: »

I'll freely admit to having been both.

Depends what problems we pose, and what outcomes we want. I don't believe in ascribing intention to technology...

Aka, if the ship's sinking, who cares, it doesn't matter anyway?
I relate this view to pessimism; by which I mean, when I think like this I feel more helpless, on the 'its useless why bother trying' lines. I've found this not to work in my personal life, and try to extend that to other stuffs.

Thats more than one problem. One is the straight Malthusian population issue of population overshoot, one is the per capita resource use of a 'Western' lifestyle. Population control has classically focused on the non-white 'Developing' world, rather than the 'Developed', with far higher consumption per capita.

While the political feasibility of controlling world population may or may not be possible, and calls to mind all sorts of ideas best discussed on the Conspiracy Theory boards, or catastrophist scenarios such as DieOff, controlling our own behaviour certainly is. Competition and the market, I think, may show that whatever about the political possibility for a lower energy lifestyle, the enforcement will be, and already is, economic.

I suppose I find it hard to believe that "driving smaller card slower" is going to solve the problems we are told we have. the real problem is that India & China want to consume vastly more and more meat, India China South america & Africa all aspire to the western lifestyle, with China and India particularly rapidly changing to that way of life. Add to that our population is set to increase by almost another 50% by 2050, and it seems difficult to stop, let alone reverse, the problems except by the most draconian means.

Macha

auerillo wrote: »

I suppose I find it hard to believe that "driving smaller card slower" is going to solve the problems we are told we have. the real problem is that India & China want to consume vastly more and more meat, India China South america & Africa all aspire to the western lifestyle, with China and India particularly rapidly changing to that way of life. Add to that our population is set to increase by almost another 50% by 2050, and it seems difficult to stop, let alone reverse, the problems except by the most draconian means.

Personally I think the real problem is that we are already living the way we do. The fact that we advertise to the rest of the world that this is the best way to life means it should come as no surprise that developing countries should want to emulate our lifestyle.

I have to agree with you that baby steps are no good. Plugging out your phone charger when you're not using it? Woohoo...

djpbarry

taconnol wrote: »

I have to agree with you that baby steps are no good. Plugging out your phone charger when you're not using it? Woohoo...

A series of baby steps is probably the only way people in the West will accept the changes. Besides, it all adds up. For example, my life is not drastically different to the lives of those around me, yet my carbon footprint is (apparently) way below the EU average (according to change.ie - pinch of salt, I know). I have not had to make any major sacrifices, I think I'm just a little more energy-conscious than most people.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

A series of baby steps is probably the only way people in the West will accept the changes. Besides, it all adds up. For example, my life is not drastically different to the lives of those around me, yet my carbon footprint is (apparently) way below the EU average (according to change.ie - pinch of salt, I know). I have not had to make any major sacrifices, I think I'm just a little more energy-conscious than most people.

Where we differ is that I'm not so bothered about whether people are happy about it or not. In most places that actually take large steps towards a more environmentally friendly society, the average guy in the street isn't really that happy about it (Eg. Vaxjo in Sweden (average yearly CO2 emissions of c.2 tonnes p.p.), that town in Japan where there is no trash service).

I don't think it really does add up. 4.5million people plugging out their phone chargers is pretty quickly wiped out in one morning's commute in Ireland

djpbarry

taconnol wrote: »

I don't think it really does add up. 4.5million people plugging out their phone chargers is pretty quickly wiped out in one morning's commute in Ireland

I think you misunderstood me; a series of "baby-steps" taken by each individual will add up. Obviously, it would be pointless for someone to make sure they're unplugging all their "wall warts" when they're not in use if said person insists on driving their SUV everywhere.

Every individual can significantly reduce their "carbon footprint" with a series of small, relatively painless changes to their lifestyle - obviously the odd one in isolation is not going to make a huge difference.

Macha

Ah right - gotcha now. Yes you're right (isn't that an unusual thing to read on boards )

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

I think you misunderstood me; a series of "baby-steps" taken by each individual will add up. Obviously, it would be pointless for someone to make sure they're unplugging all their "wall warts" when they're not in use if said person insists on driving their SUV everywhere.

Every individual can significantly reduce their "carbon footprint" with a series of small, relatively painless changes to their lifestyle - obviously the odd one in isolation is not going to make a huge difference.

It's hard to argue about doing anything which is reducing our own emissions, but when you see China alone currently building 100 new airports, 50 new coal powered electricity generating stations and 10 million new cars per year, one has to wonder what effect anyone of us is really going to have.

The real problem is over population, and it would be more ecologically beneficial if we all installed a new patio heater instead of having more and more children.

Macha

I'd have to say that its the impact that each person is having, rather than the fact that the person actually exists. According to your logic, people in countries with lower ecological footprints would be allowed to have more children than those in more polluting countries.

With one of the highest per capita co2 emissions in the world (18tonnes pppa), Irish people probably wouldn't be allowed any kids at all. Yet the only country that is really doing something about this over population is China, a country that has co2 emissions of about 4 tonnes per person. Fair?

amacachi

taconnol wrote: »

Or the school children in Azerbaijan who are forced out of school into the cotton fields to pick cotton so 16 year old Sorcha can go to Penneys and buy a t-shirt for €1. I know this all sounds a bit woolly and anti-globalisation but I think people really need to think about their everyday purchases. There are consequences. It's about educating yourself (not you personally jawlie..).

Just wondering what your point is here? Should the cotton pickers be offered a higher wage, in the hope that this would somehow keep more people in school? Or should we grow our own cotton?

I don't let on to be an environmentalist by any means, if anything I think most of it is bull****. However I would say I pollute less than most people I know, just through being sensible (and cheap :P). I'll buy local food when it's available and don't leave electrical items on for no reason.

A good example was some strawberries my mother bought in Newry, they were grown in Scotland. How the hell does it make economic sense?

I have no problem when people make a decision to try and help the environment, even if I think it's going to make no difference, but when they start shoving it down my throat and claiming the lack of monsoon rains in India are my fault, am I really going to listen after that?

One of the problems I have with the "Green" movement is that young people have been conditioned so much that every natural disaster is caused by "climate change" and humans. After the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami I was talking to several girls in their early teens who thought it was caused by humans. They weren't basing this on any information, they just seemed to be made to assume that it had to be their fault.

Bit waffly there.

Macha

amacachi wrote: »

Just wondering what your point is here? Should the cotton pickers be offered a higher wage, in the hope that this would somehow keep more people in school? Or should we grow our own cotton?

I don't let on to be an environmentalist by any means, if anything I think most of it is bull****. However I would say I pollute less than most people I know, just through being sensible (and cheap :P). I'll buy local food when it's available and don't leave electrical items on for no reason.

A good example was some strawberries my mother bought in Newry, they were grown in Scotland. How the hell does it make economic sense?

I have no problem when people make a decision to try and help the environment, even if I think it's going to make no difference, but when they start shoving it down my throat and claiming the lack of monsoon rains in India are my fault, am I really going to listen after that?

One of the problems I have with the "Green" movement is that young people have been conditioned so much that every natural disaster is caused by "climate change" and humans. After the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami I was talking to several girls in their early teens who thought it was caused by humans. They weren't basing this on any information, they just seemed to be made to assume that it had to be their fault.

Bit waffly there.

My point is you should think that there is something wrong with buying a pair of shoes for €2. My point is people should think about where the items they are buying come from and the methods of production. My point is that if people demanded that people at the other end of the production line were treated better, and were willing to pay more thatn €1 for a tshirt, maybe these people would be treated better. My point is people should buy ethically but of course people are too worried about quantity not quality so it isn't going to happen.

What's your point? You just seem to be griping at the green movement. Most of it is bull****? You think the way we live in Ireland is in any way 'normal'?? It isn't normal in any historical sense and is totally predicated on that lovely lovely black stuff, oil. We're all floating along on a pool of fossil fuels, telling ourselves its going to last and that we're worth it.

amacachi

taconnol wrote: »

My point is you should think that there is something wrong with buying a pair of shoes for €2. My point is people should think about where the items they are buying come from and the methods of production. My point is that if people demanded that people at the other end of the production line were treated better, and were willing to pay more thatn €1 for a tshirt, maybe these people would be treated better. My point is people should buy ethically but of course people are too worried about quantity not quality so it isn't going to happen.

What's your point? You just seem to be griping at the green movement. Most of it is bull****? You think the way we live in Ireland is in any way 'normal'?? It isn't normal in any historical sense and is totally predicated on that lovely lovely black stuff, oil. We're all floating along on a pool of fossil fuels, telling ourselves its going to last and that we're worth it.

You seem to be implying that the low wages at their end is causing them to leave school early is all I meant.

I agree that people should try to buy ethically, but there's so much ignorance and misinformation around. I know girls who won't buy things in Penny's because they heard how poorly the employees at the far end are treated. Of course they then went and bought clothes priced about 10-15 times higher, which are probably made in the same factories by the same workers, but the company takes a bigger lump of profit. I'm known as a hippie-hater but if someone wants to buy ethically then more power to them, I just hate meeting people who are smug with themselves for doing something "good" when they're just plain wrong.

I know that the way Ireland is operating these days is a joke. I just don't like the fact that being "green" is being tagged onto everything to make it more appealing. Public transport needs to improve big time. Not for saving the environment, but for convenience. Planning needs a huge overhaul, but it may already be too late. I agree with a lot of things that environmentalists want, but guilting people into doing it, and hounding them if they don't just isn't the way to do it. A lot of people are stupid, but when they see that everything to do with "saving the planet" causes higher taxes or higher costs, they're rightly or wrongly going to jump to the same conclusion. And I don't mean switching off aplliances, I mean anything to do with the government. Like paying for a car to be recycled. What, in the old days when the scrapyard owner paid you so that he couldn't sell it on? Just little things like that.

auerillo

taconnol wrote: »

I'd have to say that its the impact that each person is having, rather than the fact that the person actually exists. According to your logic, people in countries with lower ecological footprints would be allowed to have more children than those in more polluting countries.

With one of the highest per capita co2 emissions in the world (18tonnes pppa), Irish people probably wouldn't be allowed any kids at all. Yet the only country that is really doing something about this over population is China, a country that has co2 emissions of about 4 tonnes per person. Fair?

China has a population of over 1 billion. ireland has a population of around 4 million.

By your reckoning, Ireland has 18 tonnes per person = annual emissions of 72 million tonnes.

China has 4 tonnes per person = annual emissions of over 4 billion tonnes.

China is selling 10 million new cars per year.
China is commissioning 50 new coal powered firs stations and 100 new airports. How soon do you think 4 tonnes per year becomes 5 tonnes per year, then 6 tonnes etc etc?

I ton per person per year increases China's annual emissions by 1 billion tonnes per year.

Its population aspires to the western lifestyle (ie 18 tonnes per person per year.) They all want to drive cars, have central heating and air conditioning, eat lots of red meat etc etc, and the Chinese government seems not veryu concerned about it all.


The same is true for India, which also has a population of over 1 billion, and it is a fact that both China and Cndia are both delevoping at quite incredible rates, with both countries aspiring to the western lifestylr ( ie 18 tonnes per person per annum).

Macha

auerillo - all of what you have said is correct. None of it negates the fact that Ireland has disgustingly high carbon emissions and that we should be trying to get our carbon emissions down. How exactly can we take the moral high ground & tell Chindia not to 'develop' while we have the highest carbon emissions pp in Europe?

My other point was about equality. If each person has a carbon allowance (I've heard the figure 4 tonnes p.a. at the present population), the people of China are not the problem - Europe, Australia and Northern America are.It's not fair to talk about things on a country by country basis and not on a per capita basis.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

The real problem is over population, and it would be more ecologically beneficial if we all installed a new patio heater instead of having more and more children.

People in the west are having "more and more children"? Really?

amacachi wrote: »

A good example was some strawberries my mother bought in Newry, they were grown in Scotland. How the hell does it make economic sense?

I think that's precisely the point; you are conscious of the nonsense of importing strawberries from Scotland - a lot of people are not.

amacachi wrote: »

One of the problems I have with the "Green" movement is that young people have been conditioned so much that every natural disaster is caused by "climate change" and humans. After the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami I was talking to several girls in their early teens who thought it was caused by humans.

In fairness, those girls sound like idiots. The only "environmentalists" who I have heard attribute natural disasters to climate change are left-wing nutjobs and for every one of them, there is a right-wing nutjob who will deny that climate change is happening at all.

amacachi wrote: »

I know girls who won't buy things in Penny's because they heard how poorly the employees at the far end are treated. Of course they then went and bought clothes priced about 10-15 times higher, which are probably made in the same factories by the same workers, but the company takes a bigger lump of profit.

Not necessarily. Many brands (not all of them) go to great lengths to ensure that their products are produced ethically; I believe Gap is one such company. Of course, that doesn't mean that they don't make huge profits.

Primark is slightly different. Because their products are so very cheap, their profit-margins are wafer thin and you do have to wonder about the welfare of the producers at the other end of the chain. In fact, I seem to recall watching a documentary on just this subject not too long ago - I'll see if I can dig it out.

auerillo wrote: »

Its population aspires to the western lifestyle (ie 18 tonnes per person per year.) They all want to drive cars, have central heating and air conditioning, eat lots of red meat etc etc,

Exactly. We're not setting a very good example, are we? 18 tonnes per person, per year is ridiculously high and can easily be reduced.

auerillo

taconnol wrote: »

auerillo - all of what you have said is correct. None of it negates the fact that Ireland has disgustingly high carbon emissions and that we should be trying to get our carbon emissions down. How exactly can we take the moral high ground & tell Chindia not to 'develop' while we have the highest carbon emissions pp in Europe?

Personally I have no intention of taking the high moral ground in the first place. In any case, whether one tells China or India not to develop, from the high ground or the low ground, is unlikely to stop them developing. Certainly it hasn’t so far.

I resist the quasi religious language which has come to surround the whole issue, and really find the talk of the “moral high ground” etc to be completely meaningless. Problems demand solutions and not posturing or scrambling for what we assume to be the moral high or low grounds. Environmental issues are not moral issues, but practical issues.

If I were Chinese or Indian I would feel patronised to think that I am not capable of finding solutions until I see Europeans assuming the moral high ground and leading the charge, and whose wonderful example I can then copy.

My point is that as standards of living improve, up goes the carbon emissions, at least with today’s technology.

Additionally, the worlds population is set to increase to 9 billion by 2050. Add that to 10 million new cars etc etc per year in China alone, and it doesn’t take a mathematical genius to realise that we really can’t solve this problem by driving smaller cars slower etc in Ireland.

If we really want to get the worlds carbon emissions down, then we all have to work together to find solutions, and it seems that China, India, most of Asia, South America and large parts of north America are just not interested in solutions which, in effect, mean they can not develop their economies further. Of course they will go to Kyoto etc and fly around the world on junkets to put on their serious faces and talk seriously about it. But when it comes to action….. well, that’s a different matter.

djpbarry wrote: »

We're not setting a very good example, are we? 18 tonnes per person, per year is ridiculously high and can easily be reduced.

It may well be hubris to think that the Chinese or the Indians etc etc have any interest in the example we may or may not set. AS said earlier, problems require solutions and not examples.

djpbarry wrote: »

People in the west are having "more and more children"? Really?.

I’m not entirely sure why you think the problem of overpopulation is only relevant to “the west”. It’s a global problem and the figures I quoted for the increase in population from 6.5 billion now to 9 billion in 2050 are figures for the world, and not for “the west”.

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

Additionally, the worlds population is set to increase to 9 billion by 2050. Add that to 10 million new cars etc etc per year in China alone, and it doesn’t take a mathematical genius to realise that we really can’t solve this problem by driving smaller cars slower etc in Ireland.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't take any steps to address the problem, because someone else isn't? That we should continue to contribute to the problem because any improvement we make will be more than offset by others?

Am I justified in littering because someone is illegally dumping toxic waste in another part of the country?

auerillo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you arguing that we shouldn't take any steps to address the problem, because someone else isn't? That we should continue to contribute to the problem because any improvement we make will be more than offset by others?

Am I justified in littering because someone is illegally dumping toxic waste in another part of the country?

I am arguing that whatever steps we take in ireland will have no effect on what is the whole worlds problem, and until the whole world decides to act together, unilateral action on behalf of Ireland, or individuals in Ireland, seems pointless.

There are many good reasons for each of us to reduce our individual use of resources. Its a good idea and we should all do it. And even if it makes us feel we are doing our bit for global emissions, thats not a bad thing either, if we need to feel that.

Oscar bravo, your preferred style of debate seems to be to ask a question about one point in a post, and to ignore the rest and not to debate the issue itself. It's unnerving and makes me feel as if you are looking more to catch me out than to debate the issue!

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

If I were Chinese or Indian I would feel patronised to think that I am not capable of finding solutions until I see Europeans assuming the moral high ground and leading the charge, and whose wonderful example I can then copy.

Conversely, if I were Indian or Chinese, I would find it most hypocritical of Europeans to be telling me to reduce my carbon footprint, if at the same time, they were doing nothing to reduce theirs.

auerillo wrote: »

...it doesn’t take a mathematical genius to realise that we really can’t solve this problem by driving smaller cars slower etc in Ireland.

Who has suggested that we can?

auerillo wrote: »

I’m not entirely sure why you think the problem of overpopulation is only relevant to “the west”.

My question was in response to this point of yours:

"The real problem is over population, and it would be more ecologically beneficial if we all installed a new patio heater instead of having more and more children."

Obviously, it makes little sense and I was drawing attention to this fact by way of facetious questioning.

auerillo wrote: »

I am arguing that whatever steps we take in ireland will have no effect on what is the whole worlds problem, and until the whole world decides to act together, unilateral action on behalf of Ireland, or individuals in Ireland, seems pointless.

There are many good reasons for each of us to reduce our individual use of resources.

Didn't you just say it was pointless?

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

I am arguing that whatever steps we take in ireland will have no effect on what is the whole worlds problem, and until the whole world decides to act together, unilateral action on behalf of Ireland, or individuals in Ireland, seems pointless.

And I drew an analogy to littering versus dumping toxic waste, which you chose to ignore.

There are many good reasons for each of us to reduce our individual use of resources. Its a good idea and we should all do it. And even if it makes us feel we are doing our bit for global emissions, thats not a bad thing either, if we need to feel that.

How can it be pointless, and also a good idea?

Oscar bravo, your preferred style of debate seems to be to ask a question about one point in a post, and to ignore the rest and not to debate the issue itself. It's unnerving and makes me feel as if you are looking more to catch me out than to debate the issue!

Whereas your preferred style of debate seems to be to blithely ignore any inconvenient questions, or indeed to deflect the issue into a discussion of other users' posting styles. How about we all stay on topic?

Pgibson

An article in this month's Scientific American magazine rightly points out that if this generation doesn't take extreme and urgent action then this generation may be cursed by future generations..

The CO2 count is now at 384 ppm and rising inexorably.

We may be facing worldwide climate "meltdown" if it is not stopped and reversed.
Scientific American is a very level headed sober magazine incidentally.

( http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climate-fatigue )

.

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

Conversely, if I were Indian or Chinese, I would find it most hypocritical of Europeans to be telling me to reduce my carbon footprint, if at the same time, they were doing nothing to reduce theirs.
Who has suggested that we can?
My question was in response to this point of yours:

"The real problem is over population, and it would be more ecologically beneficial if we all installed a new patio heater instead of having more and more children."

Obviously, it makes little sense and I was drawing attention to this fact by way of facetious questioning.
Didn't you just say it was pointless?

It’s a shame to divert away from the argument away into semantics and point scoring. I don’t think it is up to Europeans to “tell” anyone else how to behave, and I am not advocating we tell anyone else how to reduce their carbon footprint.

I think it is a good idea to not be wasteful and certainly it’s a good idea for each of us to try to reduce our own carbon footprint. Thats just good citizenship and common sense. That is entirely consistent with a view that it is pointless insofar as it is not a solution to overall world emissions bearing in mind the earlier points we made about china, India, Asia, north America etc .

oscarBravo wrote: »

And I drew an analogy to littering versus dumping toxic waste, which you chose to ignore. How can it be pointless, and also a good idea? Whereas your preferred style of debate seems to be to blithely ignore any inconvenient questions, or indeed to deflect the issue into a discussion of other users' posting styles. How about we all stay on topic?

I find your post here aggressive. I’m not sure if that’s how you mean it to come across or not.

I didn’t “ignore” your analogy about littering, but felt that it was complete and didn’t need any further discussion. In your previous post, you ou asked me if my argument was

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you arguing that we shouldn't take any steps to address the problem, because someone else isn't? That we should continue to contribute to the problem because any improvement we make will be more than offset by others?

Am I justified in littering because someone is illegally dumping toxic waste in another part of the country?

I replied to try to clarify my argument as follows.

“I am arguing that whatever steps we take in ireland will have no effect on what is the whole worlds problem, and until the whole world decides to act together, unilateral action on behalf of Ireland, or individuals in Ireland, seems pointless.”

I didn’t see any other questions in your post and to claim I “blithely ignore any inconvenient questions” seems confrontational and untrue as you didn’t have any other questions.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to come across as aggressive and confrontational and use such pejorative language, and I wish we could discuss the issue rather than seem to be attempting to catch each other out and personalise the discussion.

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

It’s a shame to divert away from the argument away into semantics and point scoring.

It's a bit rich to talk about others diverting the argument, when you constantly divert it yourself with your righteous indignation.

I didn’t “ignore” your analogy about littering, but felt that it was complete and didn’t need any further discussion.

The analogy was phrased as a question. This is not the first time you've refused to engage in a discussion with the paper-thin excuse that the points made to counter yours "didn't need further discussion".

I’m not sure why you feel the need to come across as aggressive and confrontational and use such pejorative language, and I wish we could discuss the issue rather than seem to be attempting to catch each other out and personalise the discussion.

If you want to discuss the issue, discuss it. Refusing to answer questions you've been asked isn't discussion, it's ignoring them, whether you feel they're "complete" or not (how can an unanswered question be "complete"?).

auerillo

Pgibson wrote: »

An article in this month's Scientific American magazine rightly points out that if this generation doesn't take extreme and urgent action then this generation may be cursed by future generations..

The CO2 count is now at 384 ppm and rising inexorably.

We may be facing worldwide climate "meltdown" if it is not stopped and reversed.
Scientific American is a very level headed sober magazine incidentally.

( http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climate-fatigue )

.

I guess we have to realise that by "we" me must mean everyone in the world. And also by the "we" we also mean everyone in the expected population increase by the year 2050.

What we seem to mean by "if its not stopped and reversed" is that those in the developed west can continue to live with central heating, motor cars, foreign holidays and weekends away, and we can keep buying the goods from China & india the production of which technically adds to "their" emissions and reduce "ours", and that those in China and india are not allowed to develop their economies to the sam point of development as we are. To do so would enormously increase world emissions.

I wonder what steps the world needs to take now to stop and reverse the emissions, and whether we in the west are really prepared to reduce our standard of living to achieve it?

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

...and whether we in the west are really prepared to reduce our standard of living to achieve it?

Didn't you say earlier in this thread that it's pointless for "us" in "The West" to do anything if "they" (India, China, etc.) don't follow suit?

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

Didn't you say earlier in this thread that it's pointless for "us" in "The West" to do anything if "they" (India, China, etc.) don't follow suit?

It would be lovely if it were than simple, but we seem to be told from all sides that unless teh whole world drastically cuts our emissions, then we are going to slide further and further into the problem. We are told that the magnitude of the problem is such that "driving smaller cars slower" in ireland is really not going to affect the problem either way.

I know there are those who say we should be doing that anyhow for reasons of setting an example, but I really don't think the Chinese are or the Indians or the Africans are all poised on a precipice just waiting to follow our good example. The problem is more complex than that and the solution can only be found if we all work together, rather than ireland hoping its shiny example will be followed by everyone else.

The other problem, the elephant in the room, is population control. The real problem is overpopulation, and while that is politically incorrect to mention, I think its unlikely we will stop emissions increasing ( whatever about reversing them) until we tackle overpopulation and, particularly, the massive increase in population expected by 2050.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

It would be lovely if it were than simple, but we seem to be told from all sides that unless teh whole world drastically cuts our emissions, then we are going to slide further and further into the problem.

It is that simple. Ireland is part of “the whole world”, is it not? If Ireland reduces its emissions, that will contribute to a reduction in “the whole world’s” emissions, will it not?

auerillo wrote: »

I know there are those who say we should be doing that anyhow for reasons of setting an example, but I really don't think the Chinese are or the Indians or the Africans are all poised on a precipice just waiting to follow our good example.

If Ireland demonstrates that reducing emissions (by reducing energy consumption) is economically beneficial, then I see no reason why other countries would not follow suit.

auerillo wrote: »

The real problem is overpopulation, and while that is politically incorrect to mention, I think its unlikely we will stop emissions increasing ( whatever about reversing them) until we tackle overpopulation and, particularly, the massive increase in population expected by 2050.

The easiest way to tackle “over-population” is to raise living standards.

Besides, talk of increasing population in the context of climate change is something of a red herring. Why? Because it is not the booming populations in developing countries that are the principal contributors to the problem; it is people like us (in Ireland) with average annual emissions of 16.9 tonnes of CO2 per capita that are causing the problem.

Macha

auerillo wrote: »

The other problem, the elephant in the room, is population control. The real problem is overpopulation, and while that is politically incorrect to mention, I think its unlikely we will stop emissions increasing ( whatever about reversing them) until we tackle overpopulation and, particularly, the massive increase in population expected by 2050.

Population control is not a problem. If you look at the countries that have the highest per capita pollution/carbon emission rates, they are not the most densely populated countries. Ireland has one of the lowest population densities in Europe but we also have the highest carbon emissions per capita.

It isn't the size of the population, it's the "standard of living" that we all insanely expect as some sort of right. Hence angry AHers going mental when someone says they may have to (gasp!) pay for water, pay a carbon tax, maybe should think twice about buying that unnecessary SUV, etc. Flat screen TVs, weekends in Euorope, endless clothes, make-up, shoes:these things are all nice and lovely and pretty but I don't think people have a right to them.

That's not to say that the world cannot be overpopulated, just that we are not over populated at the moment and that the real problem is not as simple as population but per capita foot print. I mean 1.6 billion people live without electricity. Don't tell me they're the problem. I find discussions over overpopulation to be another way of pushing the problem onto poorer countries, due to their higher birth rates & population increases. We really need to stop the pretending & accept that it's the Western way of life that's the problem.

Edit: dang, djpbarry - got there first & said it more succinctly than me!

djpbarry

taconnol wrote: »

Edit: dang, djpbarry - got there first & said it more succinctly than me!

:cool:

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

The easiest way to tackle “over-population” is to raise living standards.

Besides, talk of increasing population in the context of climate change is something of a red herring. Why? Because it is not the booming populations in developing countries that are the principal contributors to the problem; it is people like us (in Ireland) with average annual emissions of 16.9 tonnes of CO2 per capita that are causing the problem.

I'd have thought that, as living standards are raised, that more or less means that the emissions are also raised.

And that is the real problem, with the projected increase in the population - much of that is coming from underdeveloped countries such as India, and China which has abandoned its one child policy in the rush to emulate the western standard of living for its people). Even if Ireland reduced it's emissions to zero, it wouldn't make a jot of difference towards a solution.

Unilateral action might be a good idea, but it's not going to solve the problem, as its the whole worlds emissions which are the problem.

Macha

I suppose it would depend what he means by living standards. If it's meat 3 times a day, endless consumerism & one car per person then that isn't a good thing.

But is there an optimal level where good living standards are met but sustainability is achieved? If so, which country is closest to that?

Pgibson

Weaning ourselves off petroleum is at the core of the solution.

There are already plans being developed in the USA (where else?) to turn an area in the Arizona deserts bigger than Ireland into vast "solar collectors" to power the USA economy. Storing the energy in vast vats of liquid sodium by day for use when needed by night.

"If necessity is the mother of invention then desperation will be the mother of the cure for climate change."


.