Greens enemies of liberty

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."


.

egan007

That's all bull...the society he asks ue to imagine can be seen by simply opening your eyes....You are Free - Ha ha
Try doing something really radical like smoking in a pub - see what happens freeman.

auerillo

Pgibson wrote: »

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."


.

Where did you read that weaning ourselves ( by ourselves do you mean the whole world) of petroleum is the core of the solution?

How will that be balanced by, for example, China's opening of one new coal fired power plant per week?

And even if it is the core to the solution, how will it be achieved? And how will we get all countries in the world to agree to it simultaneously?

Do you have a link to the project to turn the arizona desert into a big solar power collector - it sound interesting and I'd like to find out more.

I definitely agree that the solution to this problem is not to all revert to living in caves, but will be found in technological advances.

Pgibson

I meant to say "Petroleum AND COAL ETC."

My error.

This article in Scientific American magazine points the way forward in my opinion:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

The proposed action is on a scale of Second World War proportions..

Desperation will succeed when mere "necessity" does not.

.

bk

Pgibson wrote: »

I meant to say "Petroleum AND COAL ETC."

My error.

This article in Scientific American magazine points the way forward in my opinion:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

The proposed action is on a scale of Second World War proportions..

Desperation will succeed when mere "necessity" does not.

.

Err, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper just to build a shiny new Nuclear Power plant?

Me puts on my flame retardant suit

Pgibson

bk wrote: »

Err, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper just to build a shiny new Nuclear Power plant?

NO.

Thousands of shiny new nuclear power plants maybe.


.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

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

That would depend on the standard of living (and/or lifestyle) that is reached.

auerillo wrote: »

Even if Ireland reduced it's emissions to zero, it wouldn't make a jot of difference towards a solution.

You don’t think that if Ireland managed to obtain "carbon neutral" status that everybody else on the planet would take notice?

auerillo wrote: »

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.

Fine; you tell us then, what should we do?

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

You don’t think that if Ireland managed to obtain "carbon neutral" status that everybody else on the planet would take notice?
Fine; you tell us then, what should we do?

I'm really not sure that many people on the planet take very much notice of Ireland and its Carbon Status, whether its neutral or otherwise. Sure, if someone has something to contribute then I'm sure if its a good idea others will consider it.

I have no suggestions to make as to what to do. I have asked that question so many times of others, and have never had a practical response which makes any sense. It seems to me that unilateral action is pointless and, at best, of insignificant value, and so any action has to be taken universally, or else technology will provide us with the solutions.

Macha

auerillo wrote: »

I'm really not sure that many people on the planet take very much notice of Ireland and its Carbon Status, whether its neutral or otherwise. Sure, if someone has something to contribute then I'm sure if its a good idea others will consider it.

I have no suggestions to make as to what to do. I have asked that question so many times of others, and have never had a practical response which makes any sense. It seems to me that unilateral action is pointless and, at best, of insignificant value, and so any action has to be taken universally, or else technology will provide us with the solutions.

Well Sweden is hoping to be oil free by..2010 I think? That should make countries like ours (96% dependent on imported fuel) sit up and pay attention.

What do you mean in your 2nd paragraph, that you don't know how a society can become carbon netural or become sustainable in general?

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

I'm really not sure that many people on the planet take very much notice of Ireland and its Carbon Status, whether its neutral or otherwise. Sure, if someone has something to contribute then I'm sure if its a good idea others will consider it.

You do realise you've totally contradicted yourself there (yet again)?

auerillo wrote: »

It seems to me that unilateral action is pointless and, at best, of insignificant value, and so any action has to be taken universally, or else technology will provide us with the solutions.

Is it at all possible that this "technological solution" may be developed unilaterally?

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

Is it at all possible that this "technological solution" may be developed unilaterally?

Do you (or anyone else) think that it will be solely a technological solution that changes it or behaviour modification as well?
And what about the tools we already have in our tool box, like building efficient houses, putting in public transport...actually I think we kinda missed the boat on those two..