Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Greens enemies of liberty
Options
Comments
-
:rolleyes:Criticizing Gore for his carbon emissions while he jets around the world warning about carbon emissions comes under one headline:
SHOOT THE MESSENGER.
Actually, I was referring to his rather large house. But, come to think of it, is it really necessary for him to be jet-setting around the world?0 -
:rolleyes:
Actually, I was referring to his rather large house. But, come to think of it, is it really necessary for him to be jet-setting around the world?
It probably is,if he wants to get his message across.
Ask any American Presidential Candidate about the importance of standing in front of REAL people.
"Family Carbon Footprints" are a daft concept anyway.
Rich people have lived in big houses for thousands of years.
Of the hundreds of thousands of rich families in the USA to pick on and personalize it is ironic that it is the "conservation guru" Gore's family who are picked on.
"Take aim at the messenger".
(Wonder what the Kennedy family's "Carbon Footprint" is?
Or the Pope's?)
.0 -
Well that's precisely the point, isn't it - he's not much of a "conservation guru" at all, is he?Of the hundreds of thousands of rich families in the USA to pick on and personalize it is ironic that it is the "conservation guru" Gore's family who are picked on.
You didn't answer my earlier question:So presumably, you'd be perfectly ok with everyone else on the planet following Gore's example and living the same sort of lifestyle he does, complete with massive carbon emissions?0 -
Well that's precisely the point, isn't it - he's not much of a "conservation guru" at all, is he?
You didn't answer my earlier question:
What you are really saying is "Gore should live like a Pauper so no one can hear him?".
Gore has the POWER to be heard precisely because he is rich.
I answered you when I said "Grow Up."
.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Lads seriously...?0 -
-
-
No, the real problem is economic growth. Until we stop economic growth we can never survive sustainably. I agree however that stopping economic growth is much easier if we also stop population growth. But there is no mistaking that economic growth is the bigger problem.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.
Climate change has been created by the west because of its relentless march towards ever greater economic growth over the past 200 years.0 -
No, the real problem is economic growth. Until we stop economic growth we can never survive sustainably. I agree however that stopping economic growth is much easier if we also stop population growth. But there is no mistaking that economic growth is the bigger problem.
Climate change has been created by the west because of its relentless march towards ever greater economic growth over the past 200 years.
Economic growth is still attainable through technological advances that increase efficiency. However endless population growth will no doubt eat up all of the earths resources. If some population models are correct then populations level off as nations advance econmically. A good example of an exception to this model would be Saudi Arabia. A wealthy nation but with an increasing population. Im no expert on Saudi Arabia but believe there is a larger gap between rich and poor than compared with the West. Does anyone know the facts re this?0 -
Advertisement
-
No, the real problem is economic growth. Until we stop economic growth we can never survive sustainably. I agree however that stopping economic growth is much easier if we also stop population growth. But there is no mistaking that economic growth is the bigger problem.
AS long as there are people on this planet, they will virtually all want the same thing - and that is an improved standard of living. Bigger houses, better cars, better food, more leisure time, better entertainment and so on. I am not sure who the "we" is you refer to who should stop economic growth, but I just don't see it happening.
Virtually every human activity has a carbon footprint, either it is eating meat, copulating or turning on the electric lights or keeping food fresh in a fridge to drinking water. It's not just us in the wicked west who leave a carbon footprint, and the expected increase in the population by 3 billion by 2050 will have a huge impact.0 -
No, the real problem is economic growth. Until we stop economic growth we can never survive sustainably. I agree however that stopping economic growth is much easier if we also stop population growth. But there is no mistaking that economic growth is the bigger problem.
Climate change has been created by the west because of its relentless march towards ever greater economic growth over the past 200 years.
On the other hand, the sheer amount of loss and waste in our industry, transport, transmission, and lifestyles strongly suggests that we have a lot of room for carbon-neutral growth.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Endless population growth is impossible. Endless economic growth is also impossible because the limit to efficiency improvement is well before infinity. In many technologies (e.g. hydroelectricity) we have already attained the most efficiency permitted by the laws of physics.Deleted User wrote: »Economic growth is still attainable through technological advances that increase efficiency. However endless population growth will no doubt eat up all of the earths resources.
Also, increasing efficiency does not result in less resource consumption. People just use the spare cash that's been freed up to consume some extra stuff. For example energy saving heating systems have been abused to construct a rake of glass-fronted buildings all over the world.
Ryanair boasts about the fact that its aircraft have some of the most efficient engines in the world, but this simply affords them to operate more flights than anyone else.
Contraction and convergence. Carbon rationing. There are a number of available models. But strong political leadership is lacking.AS long as there are people on this planet, they will virtually all want the same thing - and that is an improved standard of living. Bigger houses, better cars, better food, more leisure time, better entertainment and so on. I am not sure who the "we" is you refer to who should stop economic growth, but I just don't see it happening.
Just because everyone wants a car (not that they do) doesn't mean that everyone will or should get one.
The problem is also cultural, and yes there is a lack of recognition in the west that we've reached the metaphorical promised land in terms of material consumption. But there is a growing awareness that further increases in consumption will not make us any happier.
It will mostly be in the countries with the lowest carbon footprints that this pop growth will occur. If the west manages to reduce its consumption and briskly roll out the necessary technologies, this population growth's impact could be offset.Virtually every human activity has a carbon footprint, either it is eating meat, copulating or turning on the electric lights or keeping food fresh in a fridge to drinking water. It's not just us in the wicked west who leave a carbon footprint, and the expected increase in the population by 3 billion by 2050 will have a huge impact.On the other hand, the sheer amount of loss and waste in our industry, transport, transmission, and lifestyles strongly suggests that we have a lot of room for carbon-neutral growth.
cordially,
Scofflaw
For you and all the others waving the magical wand of technology, remember that it typically takes decades for new technologies to replace old ones all over the world. Remember also that we, as a species, have eight years to peak our CO2 emissions before we seriously risk climate freefall.
The consequences of runaway climate change would be severe.0 -
OK, let's take an example. How would you advise on the 'sustainable growth' of air travel?On the other hand, the sheer amount of loss and waste in our industry, transport, transmission, and lifestyles strongly suggests that we have a lot of room for carbon-neutral growth.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
OK, let's take an example. How would you advise on the 'sustainable growth' of air travel?On the other hand, the sheer amount of loss and waste in our industry, transport, transmission, and lifestyles strongly suggests that we have a lot of room for carbon-neutral growth.
Most air travel is wasteful. A lot of it could be replaced by slower travel or technologies like video-conferencing.
There are a lot of specific examples of this type one can choose, and ask how we can keep doing whatever it is. In some cases the answer is going to be "we can't - or at least not without making greater savings elsewhere".
Does that mean that the only option is 'contraction and convergence'? Obviously not. C&C is an option - population reduction is another (specifically in the high-footprint countries).For you and all the others waving the magical wand of technology, remember that it typically takes decades for new technologies to replace old ones all over the world. Remember also that we, as a species, have eight years to peak our CO2 emissions before we seriously risk climate freefall.
Yes, but then...If the west manages to reduce its consumption and briskly roll out the necessary technologies, this population growth's impact could be offset.
...are you not also waving the magical wand of technology?
We are wasteful - maybe 20-30% or more of what we "use" is just being thrown away (in addition to inherently wasteful methods like air travel). And we have a mechanism already for punishing such waste - pricing.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Impact on what?...the expected increase in the population by 3 billion by 2050 will have a huge impact.
Hydroelectric generation is 100% efficient? Really?In many technologies (e.g. hydroelectricity) we have already attained the most efficiency permitted by the laws of physics.0 -
The IPCC is often thought of as consisting of 2500 of the world's leading scientists. Further , it is often thought that they are there to impartially weigh up al the evidence and give a balanced and impartial view, as expressed in their various reports. The truth is a little different.
In fact, the IPCC is as much a political organisition and it accepts, without question, that global warming is happening, and is all mans fault. it is not an impartial body looking for evidence, but a biased body looking to conceal any evidence to the contrary. Of the 53 contributors to chapter 9 of their latest report, 37 belong to a network of academics, many of whose careers are dependant on actively promoting the official line. Additionally, their reports are written by a small group and some governments are allowed to have a serious input into the text before publication.
We only have to consider the by now infamous hockey stick graph which they produced and which attempted to conceal the inconvenient fact that the world was much hotter about 1000 years ago than it is today. .
The only "evidence" that have offered that the world will get warmer and warmer comes from their own computer models, which are at best guesses and which have already been shown to be hopelessly muddled & biased.
There is a considerable body of scientists who have asked awkward questions of the IPCC, (for example how come their predictions, based on their computer models, have got it so wrong so far, and how can we put any faith in their computer modelling, when it is the same information which has got it so wrong, on which they are still relying).
Roger Cohen, (a senior US scientist who used to be involved with the IPCC) says he is "appalled at how flimsy the case is. I was also appalled at the behaviour of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance, the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defence of bogus science; and the politicisation of the IPCC process and the science process itself."
Indeed there is a growing consensus in the scientific community that the IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases. Of course there will still be those who think it is almost akin to blasphemy to question anything the IPCC does or says, but the evidence is growing that they have based their whole argument on flimsy science, they have ignored and hidden any science which disagrees with them, and their predictions, so far, have been the opposite of that which their computer models predicted. More and more scientists, and other interested parties, are becoming increasingly embarrassed to align themselves with the IPCC.0 -
No, they don’t. This is the position of the IPCC according to their latest report:In fact, the IPCC is as much a political organisition and it accepts, without question, that global warming is happening, and is all mans fault.- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
- The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
Really? You have some “evidence to the contrary” that the IPCC is overlooking, do you?it is not an impartial body looking for evidence, but a biased body looking to conceal any evidence to the contrary.
Dependent in what way?Of the 53 contributors to chapter 9 of their latest report, 37 belong to a network of academics, many of whose careers are dependant on actively promoting the official line.
Nobody’s concealing anything – Mann’s graph has been more-or-less reproduced by several other researchers:We only have to consider the by now infamous hockey stick graph which they produced and which attempted to conceal the inconvenient fact that the world was much hotter about 1000 years ago than it is today. .
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Perhaps you could demonstrate the “hopelessly muddled and biased” nature of these computer models?The only "evidence" that have offered that the world will get warmer and warmer comes from their own computer models, which are at best guesses and which have already been shown to be hopelessly muddled & biased.
Who are these scientists and what are their “awkward questions”? Also, can you show that the IPCC’s predictions “have got it so wrong”?There is a considerable body of scientists who have asked awkward questions of the IPCC, (for example how come their predictions, based on their computer models, have got it so wrong so far, and how can we put any faith in their computer modelling, when it is the same information which has got it so wrong, on which they are still relying).
I can't find much on this guy's background, but...Roger Cohen, (a senior US scientist who used to be involved with the IPCC)...
So academics are biased but this guy is not?Roger Cohen wrote:I have been involved in climate change for nearly 30 years. In 1980, a few of us in the research organization of a large multinational energy corporation realized that the climate issue was likely to affect our future business environment.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/Roger_Cohen-On_IPCCs_view_of_AGW.pdf
Evidence?...the evidence is growing that they have based their whole argument on flimsy science, they have ignored and hidden any science which disagrees with them, and their predictions, so far, have been the opposite of that which their computer models predicted.
Can you provide examples of these scientists?More and more scientists, and other interested parties, are becoming increasingly embarrassed to align themselves with the IPCC.0 -
No, they don’t. This is the position of the IPCC according to their latest report:
- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
- The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
Dependent in what way?
Nobody’s concealing anything – Mann’s graph has been more-or-less reproduced by several other researchers:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Perhaps you could demonstrate the “hopelessly muddled and biased” nature of these computer models?
Who are these scientists and what are their “awkward questions”? Also, can you show that the IPCC’s predictions “have got it so wrong”?
I can't find much on this guy's background, but...
So academics are biased but this guy is not?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/Roger_Cohen-On_IPCCs_view_of_AGW.pdf
Evidence?
Can you provide examples of these scientists?
It's kind of you to have read my post, although it seems obvious that you seem to have read it with an agenda to proving me "wrong".
I am not saying the IPCC will not be proven right eventually, or that they are necessarily wrong, but I am making the point that their predictions to date have not come true (the opposite of what they had predicted has happened).
Given that track record, many scientists are less sure than they were about the credibility of the IPCC, and are less sure about the quality of their computer modelling. Further, when they look at how they operate, it is not quite what they lead us to believe insofar, for example, that it is independant work of 2500 scientists.
If your argument is that the IPCC computer prediction have got it right over the past 10 years, then make that argument.
If your argument is that I am wrong and more and more scientists are coming around to agree with the IPCC, then make that argument too.
It is sad to note that your reply is hostile in a similar way that many believers in the theory are critical of anyone who produces evidence which does not support them. Rather than engage and discuss, you seem to prefer to poo poo and rubbish.0 -
Prove it; back up your argument with some evidence.I am not saying the IPCC will not be proven right eventually, or that they are necessarily wrong, but I am making the point that their predictions to date have not come true (the opposite of what they had predicted has happened).
Just because the IPCC has its critics (as any organisation does), it does not mean that their findings are not based on sound research (all of which is clearly cited in the reports).Given that track record, many scientists are less sure than they were about the credibility of the IPCC, and are less sure about the quality of their computer modelling.
I don’t know what you mean.Further, when they look at how they operate, it is not quite what they lead us to believe insofar, for example, that it is independant work of 2500 scientists.
It’s been pretty accurate, yes. Here is an analysis of the predictions from Prof. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado.If your argument is that the IPCC computer prediction have got it right over the past 10 years, then make that argument.
I’m asking you to provide some evidence that scientists are distancing themselves from the IPCC; I’m guessing you can’t?If your argument is that I am wrong and more and more scientists are coming around to agree with the IPCC, then make that argument too.
Eh, I AM engaging and I AM attempting to discuss your arguments. You’re the one who does not seem to be willing to engage; you’re avoiding questions on the specifics.Rather than engage and discuss, you seem to prefer to poo poo and rubbish.0 -
Advertisement
-
Endless population growth is impossible. Endless economic growth is also impossible because the limit to efficiency improvement is well before infinity.
Indeed.
By this line of reasoning, however, one must also concede that endless survival of the species is also impossible and so we must conclude that no matter what we do, mankind is doomed.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Indeed.
By this line of reasoning, however, one must also concede that endless survival of the species is also impossible and so we must conclude that no matter what we do, mankind is doomed.
That's crazy logic. How did we survive for thousands of years without "economic growth" and the incredible rates of population growth that we have seen since the beginning of the 20th century?
What is needed is sustainable development, that is just what it says on the tin. Development that does not take away the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and treats social, environmental and economic issues equally (not putting economic issues over everything else, as is the case today).
There also needs to be an acceptance that what we have now in the "West" is not sustainable, nor is it entirely desirable. In other words, we cannot continue on as we have done for the past 20 years (or longer). Unfortunately, people just don't get that. They have short memories & fail to realise that the lifestyle we "enjoy" at the moment, is not the norm, and is inherently unsustainable as it relies on barrels and barrels and barrels (and barrels) of oil.
Just take our food system for example. A farmer plants corn seeds, using a tractor (oil), spreads pesticides (oil). Then collects the crop using a harvester (oil), sends the corn off to a warehouse (more oil-based transportation). The grain is then processed using machinery (more oil) and then shipped off (more oil!) to regional distributers. It is then packaged (oil-derived plastics, normally) and then sent (oil) to the supermarket to be put on display in a supermarket, the heating and lighting and electrics system of which is entirely based on oil. Then we get in our cars (more oil), buy the corn, bring it home, and use more oil or gas either by heating up the kettle/oven/stove to cook it!!
I haven't even started talking about the disposal of the packaging, the oil used by the workers to get to the supermarket, processing plant and distribution centre. This.is.insane.0 -
But greater economic growth surely means more travelling, yes? And most people want to travel as fast as technology allows, hence the growth in flights.Most air travel is wasteful. A lot of it could be replaced by slower travel or technologies like video-conferencing.
There are a lot of specific examples of this type one can choose, and ask how we can keep doing whatever it is. In some cases the answer is going to be "we can't - or at least not without making greater savings elsewhere".
C and C wasn't the only choice i mentioned. I think that reducing economic growth to nil is more achievable than significantly reducing the population of the world (and remember it's not just the west we're talking about here) within the necessary time frame.Does that mean that the only option is 'contraction and convergence'? Obviously not. C&C is an option - population reduction is another (specifically in the high-footprint countries).
No, I'm demonstrating that I think new technology does have a part to play. But it must be realistic, which many people are not when discussing techno-fixes to climate change.Yes, but then...
...are you not also waving the magical wand of technology?
But more economic growth means that more people can afford to pay the price of polluting. The problem with a lot of things is not that they're thrown away, but that they're made in the first place. Have you noticed that carbon emissions are soaring in spite of the increased availibility of "green products"? That's because these have created a parallel market without making much of a dent in sales of their less ecological counterparts.We are wasteful - maybe 20-30% or more of what we "use" is just being thrown away (in addition to inherently wasteful methods like air travel). And we have a mechanism already for punishing such waste - pricing.
Yes, in a sense. The maximum amount of electrical energy you can get out of a water turbine is 50% of the kinetic energy invloved. In most hydro stations they're getting 45%-49% of it. Not much room for improvement.Impact on what?
Hydroelectric generation is 100% efficient? Really?In fact, the IPCC is as much a political organisition and it accepts, without question, that global warming is happening, and is all mans fault. it is not an impartial body looking for evidence, but a biased body looking to conceal any evidence to the contrary. Of the 53 contributors to chapter 9 of their latest report, 37 belong to a network of academics, many of whose careers are dependant on actively promoting the official line. Additionally, their reports are written by a small group and some governments are allowed to have a serious input into the text before publication.
Oh yeah and by the way the moon landing was faked, and 9/11 was an inside job. :rolleyes:0 -
That's crazy logic. How did we survive for thousands of years without "economic growth" and the incredible rates of population growth that we have seen since the beginning of the 20th century?
What is needed is sustainable development, that is just what it says on the tin. Development that does not take away the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and treats social, environmental and economic issues equally (not putting economic issues over everything else, as is the case today).
There also needs to be an acceptance that what we have now in the "West" is not sustainable, nor is it entirely desirable. In other words, we cannot continue on as we have done for the past 20 years (or longer). Unfortunately, people just don't get that. They have short memories & fail to realise that the lifestyle we "enjoy" at the moment, is not the norm, and is inherently unsustainable as it relies on barrels and barrels and barrels (and barrels) of oil.
Just take our food system for example. A farmer plants corn seeds, using a tractor (oil), spreads pesticides (oil). Then collects the crop using a harvester (oil), sends the corn off to a warehouse (more oil-based transportation). The grain is then processed using machinery (more oil) and then shipped off (more oil!) to regional distributers. It is then packaged (oil-derived plastics, normally) and then sent (oil) to the supermarket to be put on display in a supermarket, the heating and lighting and electrics system of which is entirely based on oil. Then we get in our cars (more oil), buy the corn, bring it home, and use more oil or gas either by heating up the kettle/oven/stove to cook it!!
I haven't even started talking about the disposal of the packaging, the oil used by the workers to get to the supermarket, processing plant and distribution centre. This.is.insane.
Lol. that's one of the funniest posts I have read on this issue and appears to confirm that view that those for whom climate change belief has replaced religious belief, climate change is seen as a means of introducing socialism and draconian population control by the back door.
It is nonsense to claim that we survived for thousand of years without economic growth. Man has always progressed and has always had the desire to progress. From living in caves and eating berries, he progressed to living is houses and eating protein. Indeed, it is this desire to better himself and his children which is the engine and why man has advanced so far, when compared to the other animals.
AS to the
There also needs to be an acceptance that what we have now in the "West" is not sustainable, nor is it entirely desirable...Just take our food system for example.
I think as we live in the west is entirely desirable when considered to how people live in India or Africa. That you don't is your choice, and in our free world you are entirely at liberty to choose wherever in teh world it is you want to live if you don't think it desirable to live in the west.
As to our food system in the "west" which you seem to also despise, surely you don't have to be reminded that our food system has ensured we are the best fed we have ever been in the history of the world.
You don't mention whether or not you think other advances, such as those in medicine, made by the "west", are a good thing or a bad thing? Why are you living in the "west" if you despise it so much?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Nice try on the strawman argument. You're going to have to brush up on your logic skills. I never said that we need to introduce socialism or draconian population control. Actually, if you look back at my previous posts, I point out that population growth is not the problem. The aim of my post was to explain how utterly dependent the current system is on oil. Well done on completely missing the point. But that's how you argue with a post, isn't it?Lol. that's one of the funniest posts I have read on this issue and appears to confirm that view that those for whom climate change belief has replaced religious belief, climate change is seen as a means of introducing socialism and draconian population control by the back door.
Ok we won't go into the historical inaccuracies here. I think you're misunderstanding what economic growth is. Economics is essentially the sharing out of a finite resource. What you're talking about is progress through inventions and innovation that has improved human's quality of life. Today, economic growth refers to increasing a country's output, with no reference to improving quality of life. As we have seen in Ireland, if you just chase the numbers and ignore everything else (is social & environmental issues), it will come back to haunt you. When I talked about economic growth earlier, I was referring to it in this sense.It is nonsense to claim that we survived for thousand of years without economic growth. Man has always progressed and has always had the desire to progress. From living in caves and eating berries, he progressed to living is houses and eating protein. Indeed, it is this desire to better himself and his children which is the engine and why man has advanced so far, when compared to the other animals.
I think this is a very narrow-minded opinion. You think everyone in India & Africa is totally miserable and wants to come live in Ireland? Many do. But many don't. It must also be pointed out that it is a the current global economic system that keep us where we are, and Africa where they are.I think as we live in the west is entirely desirable when considered to how people live in India or Africa. That you don't is your choice, and in our free world you are entirely at liberty to choose wherever in teh world it is you want to live if you don't think it desirable to live in the west.
Don't you get it? Our food system is unsustainable. And it comes at the expense of food in other countries. I recommend you read a book called "Stuffed and starved". There are the same amount of people living in food-poverty as there are obese. Something is rotton...As to our food system in the "west" which you seem to also despise, surely you don't have to be reminded that our food system has ensured we are the best fed we have ever been in the history of the world.
And again, please drop the strawman thing. I didn't say I despise the West. So now you equate criticising something with despising it? :rolleyes:
*sigh* Your radical jumps in logic that make me defend myself from something I never said are getting quite tiring. Medicine has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Technology is nothing more than power and potential. Some is good, some is bad. And no, science is not value-free, depsite the claims of many scientists.You don't mention whether or not you think other advances, such as those in medicine, made by the "west", are a good thing or a bad thing? Why are you living in the "west" if you despise it so much?
Unlike most people here, I have lived in the 3rd world and it wasn't the horrible-scary place that people like to think of here. Where I lived, nobody went hungry, most kids got an education and there was an extremely strong sense of community. And? People were very very happy with their lot. Those are a few things that are lacking to a greater or lesser degree in Ireland.0 -
Conflating growth and progress seems evidently wrong, but delinking them entirely is a trick no one seems to have been able to pull. Energy use also seems highly correlated with growth, unsurprisingly. There's a definite question around how long this can be sustained, and if it can be in the short-term, whether this is a 'moral hazard' for the future, pushing the debt and responsibility onto our descendants.By this line of reasoning, however, one must also concede that endless survival of the species is also impossible and so we must conclude that no matter what we do, mankind is doomed.
In the long run, we are all dead; the question is how long a run you want to talk about...
'Endless' growth with a finite energy substrate does seem impossible, love to see a refutation of this which doesn't violate thermodynamics tbh, can't help thinking you hit a hard constraint limit at some point, or a 'softer' one of negative feedback from our waste output. This is the old 'are we smarter than yeast?' question beloved of Steady-State economics.
If we want to grow endlessly, we need to get new planets (and avoid heat death somehow hehe). If we have only this one, and want to maintain our population, we need to capture more energy as continuous flows on the renewable model, rather than just continuously draw down natural capital on an extractive-mining model. Civilizations tend to collapse when they exceed available resources; its quite possible we have already done so, and a decrease in complexity and resource use will be enforced by physics rather than a ecofacist conspiracy of some kind.0 -
Nice try on the strawman argument. You're going to have to brush up on your logic skills....Ok we won't go into the historical inaccuracies here. I think you're misunderstanding what economic growth is...I think this is a very narrow-minded opinion. You think everyone in India & Africa is totally miserable and wants to come live in Ireland?...Don't you get it? And again, please drop the strawman thing... So now you equate criticising something with despising it? :rolleyes:...*sigh* Your radical jumps in logic...
Its hard to discuss something when I am accused of many things which are inaccurate and untrue. How do you know, for example, what i think about many people in Africa and India? And how do you know what my connections and experience about India and Africa are? And even if I have lived in Africa and/or India for longer and more recently than you have, that doesn't necessarily make my opinion any more or less valuable than yours.
Just because you hold a view, apparantly quite strongly, that our food system will be unsustainable in the future, doesn't mean that you are right, and anyone who holds a different view is wrong. You may well be proved right in the future, (whatever that entails), although I suspect the development of our food chain in the future will not be as dramatic as your "unsustainable" belief suggests, and suspect that it will not only be sustainable but will develop further to give us more choice and better value.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Your connections or experiences with Africa are irrelevant. Stop going off on tangents. Please don't be so hypocritical as to complain about being accused of things that are untrue.
Our food system IS unsustainable. My original analogy explained quite clearly how the whole system is seriously dependent at every stage on oil. Oil is a finite source. I can't really make it more simple than that. Ah yes, so you're expecting the magical technical bullet will come along and save us. Nothing new there. God forbid WE change.
Edit: "Better choice and value"? Is your idea of a sustainable food system is one that flies kiwis from New Zealand and Pumpkins from Peru because we're so pampered, we can't just live with seasonal food, as we did for thousands of years? Seriously, people need to stop thinking that everything that has been done in the last century is somehow inherently good. Blind faith in progress is a large part of what's wrong with this world.
I don't consider a food system that is totally dependent on petrochemicals, encourages monocrops and thus is bad for biodiversity, uses pesticides and has a seriously negative impact on our invertebrate populations, pushes out smaller farmers, thinks nothing of flying food from half way round the world when we have perfectly good food right here and concentrates power in the hands of a few multi-nationals "good". I find it stupid and reckless that people go a long with this, all in the name of "choice and value".
We don't realise we're paying a huge price for that kiwi, in more than just monetary terms, and is it really worth it?? Ah yes of course because its 20c cheaper!!0 -
You just said “I think as we live in the west is entirely desirable when considered to how people live in India or Africa.” I think that’s pretty clear.How do you know, for example, what i think about many people in Africa and India?
Is that just blind faith or is there a rational behind it?…I suspect the development of our food chain in the future will not be as dramatic as your "unsustainable" belief suggests, and suspect that it will not only be sustainable but will develop further to give us more choice and better value.
I also notice you ignored my last post.0 -
Advertisement
-
But greater economic growth surely means more travelling, yes? And most people want to travel as fast as technology allows, hence the growth in flights.Most air travel is wasteful. A lot of it could be replaced by slower travel or technologies like video-conferencing.
There are a lot of specific examples of this type one can choose, and ask how we can keep doing whatever it is. In some cases the answer is going to be "we can't - or at least not without making greater savings elsewhere".
So? Air travel is neither a requirement for economic growth, nor a requirement of economic growth. As such, it really doesn't constitute an argument against anything but itself.C and C wasn't the only choice i mentioned. I think that reducing economic growth to nil is more achievable than significantly reducing the population of the world (and remember it's not just the west we're talking about here) within the necessary time frame.
With the exception, alas, of the US most Western countries have reached steady state or declining populations quite some time ago. As other countries have become richer, and in particular as women become more educated, population growth levels off and then declines.
Zero economic growth would probably be as hard to achieve as zero population growth - and contraction would be really difficult and slow, whereas any form of discouragement of breeding (remove child subsidies in the west, encourage female education and contraception elsewhere) would rapidly lead to population contraction, and is fast - and economic contraction automatically follows. Granted, it's not as fast as war or plague, but what is?
Further, it's probably easier to persuade people to have fewer kids, or not to have them, than it is to persuade them to get poorer. Most people who want kids aren't aiming for a record.No, I'm demonstrating that I think new technology does have a part to play. But it must be realistic, which many people are not when discussing techno-fixes to climate change.
Ah - you assumed because I mentioned technology, I was claiming technology would sort out all the problems, whereas you know that you were only thinking of it as having a part to play. Let me cure you of your assumption - I don't claim there is any technical panacea, and you shouldn't jump to conclusions like that.But more economic growth means that more people can afford to pay the price of polluting. The problem with a lot of things is not that they're thrown away, but that they're made in the first place. Have you noticed that carbon emissions are soaring in spite of the increased availibility of "green products"? That's because these have created a parallel market without making much of a dent in sales of their less ecological counterparts.
That is because the carbon cost of the "non-green" products is not factored into their price - and people are not, therefore, paying the price of their polluting.
Pricing can be used in any environmental context, but only if the environmental 'externalities' of all products are costed. Sadly, this is upsetting to a lot of knee-jerk 'spiritual' Greens - and of course using a market mechanism is anathema to a lot of left-wing Greens.
If you price pollution high enough, only the rich can afford pollution. This seems unethical, but that's utterly irrelevant as long as it works.Oh yeah and by the way the moon landing was faked, and 9/11 was an inside job. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't worry about Auerillo. Libertarians are necessarily climate change deniers.
cordially,
Scofflaw0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement