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.

espinolman

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

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.


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

I see here posters' are making assumptions that this 'pollution caused by planes.' is co2 .
How about toxic jet fuel :
http://artificialclouds.com/

Húrin

taconnol wrote: »

But yeah, in general recycling isn't about climate change.

which is something most people seem not to know

Macha

Húrin wrote: »

which is something most people seem not to know

Well I think it's part of a wider problem whereby some people equate the environmental movement with the climate change issue, to the detriment of other important matters like water quality, natural resources, waste, biodiversity, energy efficiency etc.

I've seen a few people on here dismiss the entire green movement just because they don't agree with anthropogenic climate change. It's a shame.

espinolman - exactly! People fixate on the carbon emissions of certain activites and blithely ignore that there are other forms of pollution.

20goto10

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

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.

You can do what you want and take as many holidays as you like. Its just going to cost you. But back to Irish issues, it is looking increasingly likely that Ireland will have a carbon tax come the next budget. Hopefully it is going to be revenue neutral (I won't count on that though, especially with FF having an input into it), so basically use your carbon sensibly and you can save lots of money. Again, you have the choice to do what you like, travel on planes as much as you like etc etc but you're going to have to pay for the damage you are causing.

The damage being done to our climate is catastrophic, and I for one am proud to be part of the generation who are going to try and do something about it. If people have to pay for the amount of carbon they use it will finally get the message through. On top of that, think of all the entreprenurial talent in Ireland ready to capitalise with eco-friendly products.

20goto10

taconnol wrote: »

espinolman - exactly! People fixate on the carbon emissions of certain activites and blithely ignore that there are other forms of pollution.

I agree with this. Even our own Green party is guilty of this. Encouraging the use of diesel fuel as if it was a clean and environmentally friendly fuel is ridiculous. We'll all be going around wearing masks soon enough. But there is no mistaking the urgency of reducing carbon emissions. It has to take priority over everything else - in fact they don't have a choice they're hands are tied by the EU and Kyoto.

djpbarry

20goto10 wrote: »

If people have to pay for the amount of carbon they use it will finally get the message through.

But people are already paying for the amount of carbon dioxide they produce - energy isn't free!

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

But people are already paying for the amount of carbon dioxide they produce - energy isn't free!

They may pay the market price for their energy but there are numerous costs that are externalised from that price.

Where is the money for our carbon credits going to come from? Who's going to pay for the improvements in flood defences, etc? It has to come from somewhere and the polluter pays principle must be applied.

ChocolateSauce

taconnol wrote: »

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?

Typical pedantic response. I couldn't even start with this, I've never seen anything so utterly literal and bloody-minded.

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Typical pedantic response. I couldn't even start with this, I've never seen anything so utterly literal and bloody-minded.

Do you know what pedantic actually means? It's not particularly relevant here at all.

Yes, that's right. Feign outrage so that you don't have to actually answer my point. Bravo. :rolleyes:

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

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

Yes, he meant we should be prosecuted if we put paper into the black/purple bin. Of course he was an extremist, I know the vast majority don't think this way. It seems like some parts of the UK government are extremists though....

ChocolateSauce

taconnol wrote: »

Do you know what pedantic actually means? It's not particularly relevant here at all.

Yes, that's right. Feign outrage so that you don't have to actually answer my point. Bravo. :rolleyes:

Being extremely picky or literal about something is a fairly wide definition. What is there to answer in your post? It's so silly I couldn't begin.

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Being extremely picky or literal about something is a fairly wide definition. What is there to answer in your post? It's so silly I couldn't begin.

Sorry but it was an incorrect use of the word. My post wasn't silly although it was overly aggressive so apologies for that. My point is that the argument about freedom can be used for any argument.

For example, if I live in a city with a good public transport, I have the freedom to choose not to buy a car and take on all the costs that go with it. In Dublin, I don't have that freedom. So what sort of freedom are you talking about? The freedom to externalise costs to other people? The freedom to pollute so that other people pick up the cost? Everything costs money and if you're not paying for it, someone else is.

ChocolateSauce

taconnol wrote: »

My point is that the argument about freedom can be used for any argument.

Not with a straight face, and I wouldn't use the freedom argument for something immoral, like doing anything you want with no care for consequences. I find it offensive that someone would suggest I would argue for freedom without thought, and if I saw someone arguing for that degree of freedom I would assume they were joking.

I mean, generally, the freedom to live life without unwarranted and direct interference, like having your rubbish habits monitored by the government.

After looking up pedantic, I see I skewed the meaning. Damn, now I need to look up a new word for the now unnamed concept I have in my head....

Macha

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I mean, generally, the freedom to live life without unwarranted and direct interference, like having your rubbish habits monitored by the government.

This is the thing: the collection and disposal of rubbish costs money. Recycling helps divert waste away from landfills. Why shouldn't those who recycle be rewarded and those who don't not be rewarded? It's human nature: we respond to stimuli and numerous studies have shown that the strongest stimulus is (surprise surprise) financial reward. People complain that environmentalists always use money/tax etc as instruments but the reality is, that's what people understand and respond to. Education, awareness, they all have their place but its money that changes people's behaviour.

And I agree that the idea of someone rifling through your rubbish is off-putting but have you ever visited a landfill? It is one of the most sobering experiences to see the non-stop trucks lining up behind one another to dump thousands of tonnes of rubbish in an enormous hole in the ground. And so much of it could be recycled or composted. In one landfill alone, one chemical needed to treat the leachate costs €30,000 for one week. It's total insanity.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

After looking up pedantic, I see I skewed the meaning. Damn, now I need to look up a new word for the now unnamed concept I have in my head....

I'm sure you'll find a perfectly cromulent word :pac:

Húrin

taconnol wrote: »

Well I think it's part of a wider problem whereby some people equate the environmental movement with the climate change issue, to the detriment of other important matters like water quality, natural resources, waste, biodiversity, energy efficiency etc.

I agree. There must be a change in the public discourse away from putting the climate in the "environmental" box. Climate change isn't really a 'green' issue anyway, so much as an economic issue.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Yes, he meant we should be prosecuted if we put paper into the black/purple bin. Of course he was an extremist

I think he may be in a gang. I certainly can't think of any better way to waste police time and resources than going after people who mix up their rubbish.

Run_to_da_hills

Spy cameras at rubbish tips

Just a few years ago the following article would have been material for the CT forum. Now its a reality. I have come across several posters that have already received automated fines for breach of rules at these centers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-418631/Now-spy-cameras-rubbish-tips.html

Mahatma coat

See this kind of stuff wont work, because the biggest poluters will be allowed exemptions, for example are we gonna limit military Carbon expenditure, probably not, now whats the Carbon footprint of an F18 on full burn compared to a 1/2 full 737 cruisin from London to Belgrade. it just seems to me as being a sneaky way for the NWO Lizzzzzzards to limit population mobility and keep the peasents in their place.

also as pointed out Food Production os one of the most carbon intensive industries, are we gonna cut back on the number of cattle allowed, I doubt that too.

so you just keep convinin yerself that your ridiculously expensive lightbulbs and ocasional use of the bus are gonna save the world, while on the other side of the planet 8-10 thousand acres of open cast coal mines are burning in China on a daily basis.

djpbarry

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so you just keep convinin yerself that your ridiculously expensive lightbulbs and ocasional use of the bus are gonna save the world, while on the other side of the planet 8-10 thousand acres of open cast coal mines are burning in China on a daily basis.

So it's ok for me to litter because other people do it?

Run_to_da_hills

djpbarry wrote: »

So it's ok for me to litter because other people do it?

As long as you are not caught on CCTV.

johnpauls

Maybe the Greens can reduce harmful emissions by not spending all day on the internet.