Lost the plot

[Jane_Russell]

The earth will not be dead and lifeless. If and when we wipe ourselves out, there will be a new start for the earth. An end to one chapter and the start of something new. When people talk about destroying the environment, what they mean is OUR environment. The two are not the same thing.

Jane

[Dennis1234567]

I'm not sure all the nuclear power stations will let that happen with no one at the helm. All will eventually go into into meltdown turning us more radioactive than the sun.

[Rich_]

This has all got quite depressing! But it has to be said that money is king in the world we have created and the people who are running it will do nothing to jeopardise their financial interests, whatever the cost to the planet.

Even our own ever so concerned government are doing nothing that will really make a difference on a global scale, but they may as well make a few quid out of it in the way of green taxes, whilst looking as if they really care!

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Jane_Russell

The earth will not be dead and lifeless. If and when we wipe ourselves out, there will be a new start for the earth. An end to one chapter and the start of something new. When people talk about destroying the environment, what they mean is OUR environment. The two are not the same thing.

Jane

I agree with you to a point Jane, life will go on. Although it's a tad misleading to claim that we are only destroying our environment. We are also destroying the environment of all the countless other species who have the misfortune to inhabit the planet in the same geological time period as 'man'.

Also, Rich it's not really the case that the government is simply trying to make a quick buck out of climate change. If that were true they'd have introduced far more stringent policies than they actually have. Most current climate policies are 'revenue neutral' from the government's point of view i.e. the govt gives back out (in tax breaks etc) as much as they collect. Also, policies such as the EU carbon permit scheme raise little if anything for the government. Permits are distributed freely to firms who they can trade them with each other.

Taxes on petrol and potential road pricing will make the government money but these are not policies aimed specifically at climate change (even though from time-to-time it suits the government to claim that they are).

Matt

[Rich_]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

Also, Rich it's not really the case that the government is simply trying to make a quick buck out of climate change. If that were true they'd have introduced far more stringent policies than they actually have.


Matt

If they make the policies too stringent, people stop driving and flying and we all sit at home with the lights out , but it would benefit the environment. As a result of this, though busnesses go bust the government looses revenue, and the society we have built falls in on its self.

If climate change is not part of a natural cycle I see no solution to it, unless we are all prepared to go back to being hunter gatherers...... But the world has become too civilised for that, I think.

[Paul mabbott]

It is not a question of total deindustrialisation - it is simply a matter of avoiding waste, using all energy more efficiently amd using processes that are not damaging to the environment. It can be done if everyone has the willpower.

Originally Posted by Rich_

If they make the policies too stringent, people stop driving and flying and we all sit at home with the lights out , but it would benefit the environment. As a result of this, though busnesses go bust the government looses revenue, and the society we have built falls in on its self.

If climate change is not part of a natural cycle I see no solution to it, unless we are all prepared to go back to being hunter gatherers...... But the world has become too civilised for that, I think.

[smartie]

It could be done if everyone had the willpower, sure, but we don't, do we? The less developed nations are rushing to acquire all the non-essential trappings of capitalism that we take for granted (and who shall blame them when they see how much easier our lives are than theirs?), and we aren't about to give those luxuries up until circumstances make us, are we?

It's easy to blame governments, but they respond to public pressure and (aside from on forums like this) where is it? Scientific opinion, at least on this side of the Atlantic, is pretty much agreed on the reality of climate change, but that will only get governments energised so far until the voting public gets on board. And that isn't yet happening fast enough, as the effects of climate change aren't yet inconvenient enough for the majority to get their heads out of the sand.

We know some useful steps are being taken, out of a range of motives, but I think things will have to get a lot worse before there is anything like a general mobilisation.

[Paul mabbott]

Yes, some of us do - indeed, some of us never felt the need for these luxuries in the first place! Indeed, there has long been plenty of public support for 'green' initiatives, it just needs someone in government to make (and stick by) joined-up decisions.
And you can't really use the 'I'll give it up when everyone else does!' argument - unless someone starts doing the right things then there will never be any action. We can't entirely blame governments *but* certainly a lot can be blamed on Bush's government for not ratifying Kyoto and actually working in the opposite direction. If the USA had been taking serious action over the last decade then we would have been in a much better position to influence China and other developing countries.
We can also blame industry, partly because they seem inclined to do anything that will maintain their profits but also, particularly in UK, because they haven't the initiative or imagination to see the opportunities of new developments in environmentally friendly industry and agriculture.

Originally Posted by smartie

It could be done if everyone had the willpower, sure, but we don't, do we? The less developed nations are rushing to acquire all the non-essential trappings of capitalism that we take for granted (and who shall blame them when they see how much easier our lives are than theirs?), and we aren't about to give those luxuries up until circumstances make us, are we?

It's easy to blame governments, but they respond to public pressure and (aside from on forums like this) where is it? Scientific opinion, at least on this side of the Atlantic, is pretty much agreed on the reality of climate change, but that will only get governments energised so far until the voting public gets on board. And that isn't yet happening fast enough, as the effects of climate change aren't yet inconvenient enough for the majority to get their heads out of the sand.

We know some useful steps are being taken, out of a range of motives, but I think things will have to get a lot worse before there is anything like a general mobilisation.

[smartie]

Easy there, Paul

When I talk of "luxuries" I don't mean fast cars and three foreign holidays a year - though lots of people do want those. I mean larger houses than we need, central heating, cars, computers, washing machines, driving 30 miles to work because we prefer to live somewhere else, all that kind of stuff. Of course there are some folk who turn their backs on all this and live a much more environmentally friendly life. Maybe you are one of them, in which case I salute you.

But, I'll use myself as an example to be as little contentious as possible. I am one of those who support many green initiatives and I try to reduce my own environmental footprint by a number of means. Nevertheless I am "guilty" of much of what I am accusing the average member of the population of - simply taking for granted a level of energy consumption that isn't globally sustainable even now, and certainly won't be when the developing nations get closer to our level of consumption. And if people like me, who do know something about the issues and take an interest, are not willing to do without their constant hot water and personal transport, what of those who don't understand and don't take an interest? In my own experience they are in the majority. And I believe governments are more likely to be swayed by them than me.

BTW I agree with you about the US Government, but I don't think this is the website on which to expose the depth of my feeling there.

I should also say I'm not advocating a wait and see policy - I'm just saying I think this is largely what will happen.

[Paul mabbott]

You will appreciate that someone might get (shall we say) irritated at the amount of procrastination on this topic!
There's obviously a lot of variation between peoples' views on what is 'essential', what is 'desirable' and what is 'luxurious'; but also between how each topic itself is viewed ... For instance you mention 'central heating' - I don't see this as a 'luxury', it doesn't need to be particularly energy-wasteful if properly installed, maintained and managed; a good ch system is far more efficient and less polluting than the old coal fire!
On the other aspect (interpretation), three foreign holidays a year is not a problem if you take a train and live the life of the people; flying to far away places to stay isolated from the country in energy-expensive hotels built on delicate habitat using rare resources is a very different matter.
You will take my point that we shouldn't generalise? So there are two points here - education on energy efficiency, conservation and the like (and if people are too thick to do it themselves then we need to impose rules) and changing peoples' views of what they need - this is a fairly subtle, long-term process but can be done, there are examples .....
I don't think one should be afraid to cast blame where it truly lies and criticism of Bush, his bosses and his hangers-on is surely fair comment? If people don't recognise the forces positively working against the environment then what chance is there of changing things?

Originally Posted by smartie

Easy there, Paul
When I talk of "luxuries" I don't mean fast cars and three foreign holidays a year - though lots of people do want those. I mean larger houses than we need, central heating, cars, computers, washing machines, driving 30 miles to work because we prefer to live somewhere else, all that kind of stuff. Of course there are some folk who turn their backs on all this and live a much more environmentally friendly life. Maybe you are one of them, in which case I salute you.

But, I'll use myself as an example to be as little contentious as possible. I am one of those who support many green initiatives and I try to reduce my own environmental footprint by a number of means. Nevertheless I am "guilty" of much of what I am accusing the average member of the population of - simply taking for granted a level of energy consumption that isn't globally sustainable even now, and certainly won't be when the developing nations get closer to our level of consumption. And if people like me, who do know something about the issues and take an interest, are not willing to do without their constant hot water and personal transport, what of those who don't understand and don't take an interest? In my own experience they are in the majority. And I believe governments are more likely to be swayed by them than me.

BTW I agree with you about the US Government, but I don't think this is the website on which to expose the depth of my feeling there.

I should also say I'm not advocating a wait and see policy - I'm just saying I think this is largely what will happen.