When Green issues turn to impose fascism it's time for us to put the foot down.

Run_to_da_hills

Some times green issues go too far, just like the recent proposal from Gordon Browns adviser, Lord Turner who suggested that Britons might have to cut back on their overseas breaks.

He said the Government should urgently consider imposing individual restrictions to help reduce pollution caused by planes. Millions of families could be barred from taking holidays abroad under a proposal to ration flights.

Gordon Brown's 'environment tsar' is calling for limits on how many plane journeys travelers can take each year. He said the Government should urgently consider imposing individual restrictions to help reduce pollution caused by planes.

At the same time this current Labour government had the hypocrisy to give Heathtow Airport the go ahead for a third runway last month.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/4536352/Flights-could-be-rationed-says-environment-tsartravelers-Lord-Turner.html

Fighting Irish

This sorta sh1t happens when governent/committees etc etc run for a long time without being totally revamped
Bullsh1t on top of bullsh1t gets nobody nothing

And as for boards censoring the word sh1t :rolleyes:

quentingargan

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

...Lord Turner who suggested that Britons might have to cut back on their overseas breaks.

He said the Government should urgently consider imposing individual restrictions to help reduce pollution caused by planes. Millions of families could be barred from taking holidays abroad under a proposal to ration flights.

Gordon Brown's 'environment tsar' is calling for limits on how many plane journeys travelers can take each year. He said the Government should urgently consider imposing individual restrictions to help reduce pollution caused by planes.

Cap and Share is a very valid way of sharing the use of carbon. I can use my ration of carbon to warm my home and commute in a Porche, while you can use yours to fly wherever you like twice a year.

But assuming (as I do) that the IPCC is right about climate change, we all have to do something and a cap and share system seems to be the fairest. If I decide to insulate my house and get the bus, I can sell my share to you, so you can have the holidays and the Porche.

But the title of this post assumes that the only facists are those imposing restrictions on our behaviour. How do we describe the behaviour of those who impose what might be dreadful living conditions on future generations, and wilfully allow a rise in carbon which is going to impact on Africa, Bangladesh and other regions?

bonkey

quentingargan wrote: »

Cap and Share is a very valid way of sharing the use of carbon.

I disagree. I think its a badly-flawed way of sharing the use of CO2 emissions.

On the other hand, I believe its a good vehicle to get people to start becoming more and more aware of their CO2 emissions, and to get used to the idea of it being as much a part of our day-to-day lifestyle as living within our financial means is (or should be).

If we could get that awareness, then we'd be in a much better place from which to start effecting real measures.

Húrin

In before the lock!

colly10

Húrin wrote: »

In before the lock!

Hope this thread gets locked, seems some people like the idea of living in a nanny state, proposals like this boil my blood. Like the one we had from the greens there recently where they said we should lower the speed limit on the motorway to 100 kph to lower emissions :rolleyes:

Húrin

Climate change isn't a green issue, run to da hills. Saying that emissions should be permitted to increase without limit is like saying that unrestricted increase in borrowing and credit are good for the economy.

colly10

It'll be great to be around in the future when your told how many holidays ye can take, what car ye can drive and how much ye can heat your house, we'll probably all be poor as well, can't wait

Húrin

colly10 wrote: »

It'll be great to be around in the future when your told how many holidays ye can take, what car ye can drive and how much ye can heat your house, we'll probably all be poor as well, can't wait

Whether we like it or not, it's inevitable that we won't be able to do a lot of the energy-intensive things we can now do. I doubt it will need to be so regulated - economics will make taking five flights a year difficult or impossible. But I don't think that life will be much the worse for it. I think it could be a golden age of upskilling and education.

quentingargan

colly10 wrote: »

Hope this thread gets locked, seems some people like the idea of living in a nanny state, proposals like this boil my blood. Like the one we had from the greens there recently where they said we should lower the speed limit on the motorway to 100 kph to lower emissions :rolleyes:

Locking a thread like this would be a real nanny-state thing to do....

Carbon is no longer an environmental issue - it is a challenge which we must face up to for all sorts of other reasons - economics and overseas aid for example. See the Stern report which showed that the cost of cutting emissions was a fraction of the cost of not doing so.

There is no point in clinging onto some vague hope that the issue will go away, just because we don't like what we are hearing (or reading).

colly10

quentingargan wrote: »

Locking a thread like this would be a real nanny-state thing to do....

Carbon is no longer an environmental issue - it is a challenge which we must face up to for all sorts of other reasons - economics and overseas aid for example. See the Stern report which showed that the cost of cutting emissions was a fraction of the cost of not doing so.

There is no point in clinging onto some vague hope that the issue will go away, just because we don't like what we are hearing (or reading).

Whats the point in living when people are in control of everything ye do. If the cost of cutting emission is having the government controlling your life then I personally don't think it's worth it

BendiBus

colly10 wrote: »

Whats the point in living when people are in control of everything ye do. If the cost of cutting emission is having the government controlling your life then I personally don't think it's worth it

They're not controlling everything. That's a silly comment.

Nevertheless there is the concept of society and the greater good to take into account. That is why we have rules (or people telling us what to do, if that's what you prefer to call it).

Remember nobody knows everything (although everyone seems to have an opinion on everything these days) and therefore it sometimes requires other people with better information to hand, to make decisions on our behalf. At least democracy allows us choose those people.

Having said that I don't support restrictions on freedom to travel. Nor can I find myself agreeing with this constant onslaught on the aviation sector. Farmed livestock produce far more GHGs than aviation and the global meat & dairy industry is growing at a phenomenal rate as a new "middle class" emerges in the developing world. Maybe the government would like to propose limiting us to one hamburger and a small latté per month if it's serious about tackling global warming. Vegetables & fruit juice the rest of the time.

ebmma

Hm. Why does everyone assumed less flights = less holidays?

Trains, buses, ferries?

I think the point of flight restrictions is to get people to think more and stop taking pointless short flights (like dublin -> killarney)

Húrin

colly10 wrote: »

Whats the point in living when people are in control of everything ye do. If the cost of cutting emission is having the government controlling your life then I personally don't think it's worth it

I think that if all the meaning in your life comes from holidays, you have some serious issues to think about. There's so much more than things that money can buy, and that can be animated by petrol. If you live in Dublin, why not come along some sunday (11am or 7pm) to Grosvenor Baptist church... and see what I mean.

Húrin

ebmma wrote: »

Hm. Why does everyone assumed less flights = less holidays?

Trains, buses, ferries?

Let's be honest: it does mean fewer overseas holidays. Ferries are fun but they take time a lot of people don't have.

However, I don't see fewer holidays as reducing quality of life. I take fewer foreign trips (not for self-righteous 'green' reasons) than most of my peers (middle class, early 20s, in Dublin) and I'm no less happy than them.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

so basically because you don't want to travel overseas, nobody else should be allowed to.

awesome.

is there anything else you don't approve of? just so we know the limits of human experience as according to Hurin?

Grudaire

Father Mordmas wrote: »

so basically because you don't want to travel overseas, nobody else should be allowed to.

awesome.

is there anything else you don't approve of? just so we know the limits of human experience as according to Hurin?

Well rape?

ebmma

Húrin wrote: »

Let's be honest: it does mean fewer overseas holidays. Ferries are fun but they take time a lot of people don't have.

However, I don't see fewer holidays as reducing quality of life. I take fewer foreign trips (not for self-righteous 'green' reasons) than most of my peers (middle class, early 20s, in Dublin) and I'm no less happy than them.

I just don't equate holidays with foreign holidays.
You don't have to fly to another part of the world to have fun

spadder

There's a better way to regulate the number of flights people take, just let the DAA continue to run all the airports, pretty soon every potential traveller will give up trying to fly.

Húrin

Father Mordmas wrote: »

so basically because you don't want to travel overseas, nobody else should be allowed to.

Where did I say that? I don't look kindly on libel, even if you are anonymous.

We're not talking about this because anybody wants to do anything, or control people. We're talking about it because we have to find ways to cut our nation's carbon emissions, or it will harm our future prosperity.

And I'm sure that you can see; claiming that less foreign holidays would make life not worth living is just ridiculous, or a sign of a mental issue.

derry

spadder wrote: »

There's a better way to regulate the number of flights people take, just let the DAA continue to run all the airports, pretty soon every potential traveller will give up trying to fly.

good one

anyway dont worry the science world is ditching global warming like a hot potatoe as its just too much junk science

read the USA 2008 senate minorty report

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

and 650 top scientist desenters from the GW science and lots more like it are raining down even in the EU so junk science global warming is going belly up

Derry

djpbarry

Húrin wrote: »

If you live in Dublin, why not come along some sunday (11am or 7pm) to Grosvenor Baptist church... and see what I mean.

:rolleyes:

inforfun

colly10 wrote: »

It'll be great to be around in the future when your told how many holidays ye can take, what car ye can drive and how much ye can heat your house, we'll probably all be poor as well, can't wait

You dont have to wait for the future for that to see.
Just go back a bit in time and you ll find communism.

ChocolateSauce

I agree totally. I was once debating with someone about how far "green" should go, and he said and I quote "we should force people to recycle". I said "excuse me? Force?"

Forcing anyone to do anything is not going to sit well, and I for one will actively oppose any measures which are forced on me, even if I would comply were they not obligatory.

Grudaire

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I agree totally. I was once debating with someone about how far "green" should go, and he said and I quote "we should force people to recycle". I said "excuse me? Force?"

Forcing anyone to do anything is not going to sit well, and I for one will actively oppose any measures which are forced on me, even if I would comply were they not obligatory.

If they do it smartly - ie tax the sh*t out of it, they get the same effect, and lots of money!

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Forcing anyone to do anything is not going to sit well, and I for one will actively oppose any measures which are forced on me, even if I would comply were they not obligatory.

You must live in a deluded bubble where you actually think that you have total freedom. Every day you are "forced" to do things. Stop at red lights. Pay your taxes. Go to work. Refrain from breaking the law.

Do you similarly think that these things shouldn't be "forced" on people?

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I agree totally. I was once debating with someone about how far "green" should go, and he said and I quote "we should force people to recycle". I said "excuse me? Force?"

Did he mean, make it illegal to dump in landfill? Forcing people to separate their own waste is stupid. It's like drafting people to fight a war. They'll do it wrong. It's better to separate during processing.

Also, recycling contributes relatively little to the climate issue. I find that it's the least informed people that have the most extreme views on environmental policy. fools

baldieman

Not off topic, but not about travel.
The recent fires in Australia and the loss of life and property were apparently compounded by a draconian policy that prevented people who lived in the fire threat zones from cutting trees and brush near their properties.
But on family decided to break the law in the interest of their own safety and faced a $50,000 fine.
Now, they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html

djpbarry

Húrin wrote: »

...recycling contributes relatively little to the climate issue.

The main aim of recycling is to reduce the amount of waste we send to landfill; reduced energy consumption is an added bonus.

robtri

Húrin wrote: »

Also, recycling contributes relatively little to the climate issue. I find that it's the least informed people that have the most extreme views on environmental policy. fools

Absolutely recycling contibutes nothing to climate change, but it does stop a lot of rubbish being buried in the ground, stops toxins leaking in the the soil, helps reduce pollution,and has business/financial aspects to consider as well...... there are a lot of reasons for recycling that are benificial, climate change is not one of them....

Macha

robtri wrote: »

Absolutely recycling contibutes nothing to climate change, but it does stop a lot of rubbish being buried in the ground, stops toxins leaking in the the soil, helps reduce pollution,and has business/financial aspects to consider as well...... there are a lot of reasons for recycling that are benificial, climate change is not one of them....

Well it really depends on a lot of factors and the material in question. For example, aluminium is very energy intensive to produce so recycled aluminium does lower C02 emissions. But yeah, in general recycling isn't about climate change.