Some bad news...

[The Eagle]

I give it a few more years before the environmental guff quietens down. Its the political agenda of choice today but like all previous theocratical agendas it will fade from memory soon after some small changes are made. Banning plastic bags, thougher restrictions on littering and dumping and some small taxes on more serious forms of pollution will see this agenda out the door in a few years time. I think in the future historians will look back on this period of 'green enlightenment' and come to the conclusion that it was a period of mindless scare mongering pushed by a fanatic core of people whose only agenda was to limit progress on the planet in general and for which the environment providied the ultimate smoke screen. Like I say give it a couple of more years - fatigue will have come and gone with this issue.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Darkman

[PersianPaladin]

I give it a few more years before the environmental guff quietens down. Its the political agenda of choice today but like all previous theocratical agendas it will fade from memory soon after some small changes are made. Banning plastic bags, thougher restrictions on littering and dumping and some small taxes on more serious forms of pollution will see this agenda out the door in a few years time. I think in the future historians will look back on this period of 'green enlightenment' and come to the conclusion that it was a period of mindless scare mongering pushed by a fanatic core of people whose only agenda was to limit progress on the planet in general and for which the environment providied the ultimate smoke screen. Like I say give it a couple of more years - fatigue will have come and gone with this issue.

I'm assure that would be the case with who controls the status-quo as well of course....what interpretation of 'development' is presented to the masses. If the industrial-military-banking complex really does have the true power over governments...then yes, the environmental lobby will soon fade away except for the vocal minority of pressure groups. I say that the whole case has been mispresented by many different groups and a lot of people twist it or spin it for the furtherment of their own agendas and careers....which is wrong.

[The Eagle]

Darkman, does that mean we should all carry on trashing the planet? Exhausting its resources? Polluting the environment? Etc etc.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...

Im certianly not suggesting trashing the planet by any means at all. I want to see the environment protected in as much as it can be. This means better planning, better public transport and better cleaner technology. Unlike the aspirational stuff environmentalists keep going on about - simple and effective things like this are at least acheiveable. This is the sensible route to take in my view. That way no-one loses.

I'm assure that would be the case with who controls the status-quo as well of course....what interpretation of 'development' is presented to the masses. If the industrial-military-banking complex really does have the true power over governments...then yes, the environmental lobby will soon fade away except for the vocal minority of pressure groups. I say that the whole case has been mispresented by many different groups and a lot of people twist it or spin it for the furtherment of their own agendas and careers....which is wrong.

Im trying to look at this issue realistically. I do firmly believe that there has been too much scare mongering in the whole debate and at the end of the day that is going to suit those who oppose the environmental agenda. They will simply turn around when the world does not come to an end and say - 'We told you so'.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Darkman

[Thundery wintry showers]

What sort of aspirational stuff, just out of interest?

[The Eagle]

Limiting air travel, removing dependency on oil, wanting enough power without using Nuclear, wanting battery powered cars, wanting crippling tax rises, wanting the third world to embrace windpower, wanting to end floridation of water supplies, wanting roads regulated in favour of fixed line public transport, wanting to live in wooden houses, wanting everyone to recycle, wanting punitive charges on normal bin collection, wanting no incineration, wanting no landfills, wanting to curb globalisation, wanting by proxy to inhibit the movement of free capital, wanting countries to purchase an element that is naturally occuring in the atmosphere - Carbon...................Why not start with this.

[The Eagle]

Could it be I have stopped this thread in its tracks. If so that is vindication of my stance. Why? Because no-one can challenge my above points. The environment is obviously not important enough for those to challenge all of my above posts. Im not supprised. Not only would it take a lifetime to explain all of those points (which are only the start of a very long list) but those who challenge them know that we would tear them appart too easily. The argument has been won.

Edited May 10, 2007 by Darkman

[Stratos Ferric]

Limiting air travel, removing dependency on oil, wanting enough power without using Nuclear, wanting battery powered cars, wanting crippling tax rises, wanting the third world to embrace windpower, wanting to end floridation of water supplies, wanting roads regulated in favour of fixed line public transport, wanting to live in wooden houses, wanting everyone to recycle, wanting punitive charges on normal bin collection, wanting no incineration, wanting no landfills, wanting to curb globalisation, wanting by proxy to inhibit the movement of free capital, wanting countries to purchase an element that is naturally occuring in the atmosphere - Carbon...................Why not start with this.

The problem is Darkman, by dint of the odour of much of your argument, which tends to be rather self regarding, you make the case for blanket controls at source. You strike me - and forgive me if I'm being harsh here - as somebody who probably wouldn't be at the front of the queue when it came to voluntary action.

Whether or not the cap fits, this is exactly why we have mass charging for utility services. If the earth is viewed as the utility "uber alles" then I see nothing wrong with blanket charging, better still if it's per unit consumed.

... The argument has been won.

Don't fool yourself: your far from being that smart I'm afraid. I might read into silence the fact that there's only about two people on line.

[The Eagle]

The problem is Darkman, by dint of the odour of much of your argument, which tends to be rather self regarding, you make the case for blanket controls at source. You strike me - and forgive me if I'm being harsh here - as somebody who probably wouldn't be at the front of the queue when it came to voluntary action.

Whether or not the cap fits, this is exactly why we have mass charging for utility services. If the earth is viewed as the utility "uber alles" then I see nothing wrong with blanket charging, better still if it's per unit consumed.

Don't fool yourself: your far from being that smart I'm afraid. I might read into silence the fact that there's only about two people on line.

OK so hold on. Just to make sure here ive won this argument - that means in cryptic form that you cannot answer that post............. Thank you.

You have shown, yourself, that you are self-regarding and not me. Dont get all personal because you are irritated. Thats too typical of environmentalists. Try to stand out from the crowd. The fact you cant be bothered to address any of those points says far more about you then it does about me.

Edited May 10, 2007 by Darkman

[The Eagle]

wouldn't be at the front of the queue when it came to voluntary action.

I dont care what you think of me over the internet. I can very much gaurentee you that this post is wrong and intended to deflect attention from my argument.

Edited May 10, 2007 by Darkman

[Thundery wintry showers]

Limiting air travel, removing dependency on oil, wanting enough power without using Nuclear, wanting battery powered cars, wanting crippling tax rises, wanting the third world to embrace windpower, wanting to end floridation of water supplies, wanting roads regulated in favour of fixed line public transport, wanting to live in wooden houses, wanting everyone to recycle, wanting punitive charges on normal bin collection, wanting no incineration, wanting no landfills, wanting to curb globalisation, wanting by proxy to inhibit the movement of free capital, wanting countries to purchase an element that is naturally occuring in the atmosphere - Carbon...................Why not start with this.

Could it be I have stopped this thread in its tracks. If so that is vindication of my stance. Why? Because no-one can challenge my above points. The environment is obviously not important enough for those to challenge all of my above posts. Im not supprised. Not only would it take a lifetime to explain all of those points (which are only the start of a very long list) but those who challenge them know that we would tear them appart too easily. The argument has been won.

Okay, here's some challenges.

I agree that some of the above agendas are undesirable, of which some may be unnecessary. However, let's address some specific ones:

1. Removing dependency on oil- almost certainly necessary in the long-term, because oil reserves are finite.

2. Wanting battery-powered cars. So, in that case, we still get to drive cars (albeit probably not the highest-performance ones) at lower cost to the environment (provided that the battery power generation is reasonably eco-friendly). Doesn't sound too bad a deal to me.

3. Wanting everyone to recycle. Some recycled material is inefficiently distributed, but on the whole, the idea of recycling is to enable products to be used and re-used- what's the harm in that?

As for the taxes and restraints, they are undesirable, but it's likely that voluntary action will achieve only partial success in most areas, meaning that along with voluntary action, taxes and restraints may also be necessary in the long run in order to obtain full success.

[PersianPaladin]

Limiting air travel, removing dependency on oil, wanting enough power without using Nuclear, wanting battery powered cars, wanting crippling tax rises, wanting the third world to embrace windpower, wanting to end floridation of water supplies, wanting roads regulated in favour of fixed line public transport, wanting to live in wooden houses, wanting everyone to recycle, wanting punitive charges on normal bin collection, wanting no incineration, wanting no landfills, wanting to curb globalisation, wanting by proxy to inhibit the movement of free capital, wanting countries to purchase an element that is naturally occuring in the atmosphere - Carbon...................Why not start with this.

Sometimes we have to employ the stick before the use of the carrot, I'm afraid. There has to be limitations on consumption and there HAS to be a cap on production. We live in a finite world; and our obsession with seemingly endless 'progress' and 'competition' is done at the neglect of the earths carrying capacity, resource turnover-rate, etc. We don't have to give up 'our way of life' to cut down on un-neccessary flights (too many people travel by plane for needless conferences, etc); using different fuels and more efficient means of transport, etc. Once we consume less and are given incentives to consume less then the producer is forced to produce less; thus meaning there will be less imperative for tax rises to pay for 'green incentives' - the business culture changes. The power of politics and media should be our tools for this.

We must research means into other paths of 'development'....using resources which are not so environmentally costly. 'Development' of the west is very much a controversial phenomenon anyway. In terms of culture....it has not really required fossil fuels to express our music, our art, our way of community-living, etc....so our way of life is still defined whatever the technology. To power our scientific equipment, our power stations, our research facilities, etc....we need to be looking at less damaging primary fuels. This is a case for every country on earth...not just us. This should hence give everybody an opportunity to develop scientific expertise and technological know-how without costing the earth in fossil fuels and carbon-emissions. Any other 'development' path such as large cities, industrial skyscrapers, large airports, business conglomeration, central-business district development, etc is pretty much a debatable development path and I personally regard it as a subjective reflection of 'development'. Is a society really more developed if it has more money? Or is it more developed if it is more civil, culturally, socially and scientifically advanced? What does science do for most of us anyway? Allow us to slouch in front of our TV's and be fed mostly rubbish entertainment; or to buy needless mobile phones that have 'bluetooth', etc....A lot of our technological breakthroughs are thanks to the Second World War....i.e. radar technology as one example of that and computer-technology mostly derives from original military application. I say that computers are a good and helpful tool; but unfortunately, I think there is over-production in this sector too and too much un-neccessary waste. Things go 'redundant' too quickly and are not built to last anymore in our throw-away society.

A lot of these issues will eventually dig deep into what makes us tick as humans anyway. Resource consumption, the nature of its design and distribution reflects the nature of our lives and our societies. Before we 'change' it...we need to take a look at our own lives first, and then at our society and our governments and the businesses that serve us (or monopolise and work against us....i.e. the oligarchs that seized power in Russia); and ask "What is the over-riding agenda?"; "Who benefits?"; "Who loses out?".

Edited May 10, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[jethro]

Limiting air travel, removing dependency on oil, wanting enough power without using Nuclear, wanting battery powered cars, wanting crippling tax rises, wanting the third world to embrace windpower, wanting to end floridation of water supplies, wanting roads regulated in favour of fixed line public transport, wanting to live in wooden houses, wanting everyone to recycle, wanting punitive charges on normal bin collection, wanting no incineration, wanting no landfills, wanting to curb globalisation, wanting by proxy to inhibit the movement of free capital, wanting countries to purchase an element that is naturally occuring in the atmosphere - Carbon...................Why not start with this.

Darkman, I've tried to see where you're coming from on all of the above and to be honest I'm struggling somewhat. The bottom line is we all live on the same planet and whatever measure is needed to ensure the future of the planet and safety of it's inhabitants, has got to be a good thing surely? We have finite resources which we've squandered with a short-sighted, let's have it all now mentality. It can't go on forever, irrespective of climate change. If that means we have to curb our consumption or alter our perspective either voluntarily or by enforcement then what harm can it do? Compare our easy modern day, western civilization with our ancestors or those in less developed countries and I think it's hard to argue that we don't have room to manouver, we could have a monumental drop in our living standards and still come nowhere near to the subsistant, meagre lives some poor fellows have to suffer each and every day of their lives. So, we may have to pay a bit more, we may be inconvenienced; big deal.

I could go on to answer all of your above points and more but no one wants to read a tediously long post and anyway, I don't have all the answers, neither do you. I will however address one point, your last, Carbon. Yes, it's a naturally occuring substance but our use of it is far from natural. We have completely disrupted the natural Carbon cycle to our own end. The Carbon we are emitting from our power stations/cars etc was sequested from the atmosphere a very long time ago, if left alone where it was buried, it would not be in our current atmosphere. If the technology we have today was fuelled by the Carbon in our current atmosphere, then it wouldn't be a problem. Natural in origin it may be, harmless in concentrated doses, it is not.

We were tapping away at the same time PP, have to say I agree with you all you say.

[HighPressure]

Could it be I have stopped this thread in its tracks. If so that is vindication of my stance. Why? Because no-one can challenge my above points. The environment is obviously not important enough for those to challenge all of my above posts. Im not supprised. Not only would it take a lifetime to explain all of those points (which are only the start of a very long list) but those who challenge them know that we would tear them appart too easily. The argument has been won.

This is a complex issue, it deserves proper thought, I intend to relpy but I do not believe in just sprouting out words for the sake of it. I don't think anyone is 100% right on this subject, there are many points that seem very logical but the problem with the human race is its a greedy spieces. The world we live in will not just go away, we will not get tomorrow and change our ways, its a long process of education backed by the correct sticks and carrots not just in the UK but globally. It is probably the most difficult issue we have ever faced and NO Darkman I don't think you have the issued solved.

[BrickFielder]

I still perceive a major problem with how governments and particularly the UK government will tackle the ideas and problems proposed by global warming. The problem is rather fundamental and relates to how people make choices and how governments choose to influence choices and target problem areas. Influences on choices, in the way that if I choose to use lots of fuel it will hit my pocket hard, but to high earners or businesses making the same choice it has much less affect.

For instance government have targetted drug taking as a problem and have introduced a large number of resources to tackling the problem. This is admirable, but if for exaample you are adicted to sleeping tablets then I am afraid there is no resources available to you. The problem is that the government has focused too narrowly on problem drug takers rather than the whole concept of addiction and the reason they have done this is because they need to keep costs down and focus on addiction that causes wider problems.

In fact government regulations are not designed to be fair but targeted at specific problems or in favour of those that shout the most. There is a good reason why many run down areas receive very little investment untill it starts causing problems in a wider community. Elected officials are always in the business of being popular and the balance between being popular and idealistic seems to have swung largely in favour of being popular. Is it fair that businesses get taxed less than us for fuel and yes I do understand the competive disadvantges of high taxes of companies.

Similarly in schools you see inclusion policies where those minority of pupils who would have be excluded for bad behavour being kept in schools. This in theory benefits those youngsters by not marginalising them, but in a way also sends out a message that there are not any serious consequences of bad behaviour which gives a licence to disrupt the education of all the other pupils. You can understand how well meaning the policy is and why it was introduced to target a specific problem, but the end result is really a disaster in some respects. Perhaps I should talk about how influential high earners seem to escape tax (those who shout loudest) or how the largest portion of our taxes is spent on social welfare (targeting problem areas) , but it will just sound like sour grapes and quite often these policies do some good.

Lack of real idealistic views in politics leaves me with the feeling that a minority of things will be targeted to combat global warming. Perhaps some more studies in alternative power technologies , further taxation on fuel, grants for home insulation. I think I would rather see investment in future public transport technologies, incrementally increasing tax on coal and fuel consumption across the board , investment in product distribution technologies, new rules for new build houses with taxation on those companies who are not actively recycling. Where bold and well thought out steps are required I fear we will have timid placation of conscience so in conclusion I feel the current political arena seems ill equiped to deal effectively with the threat of global warming and its real habingers, consumerism and over advertising.

[The Eagle]

Thanks for the responses. TWS asked me what were the 'asspirations' i.e things that were desirable for environmentalists but unlikely to happen. The problem is there is not enough clarity on how to deal with individual issues involved such as those ive already listed. Some examples are just due to hypocrisy - Take Energy for example. I can gaurentee that the vast majority of those that want to protect the environment are against Nuclear power also - which is clean form of energy. They actually believe that the power needs of the World can be met with renewables. I think this is just off the wall. Thats just one example.

Take the third world as another example. Countries that are yet to develope. Does anyone here seriously think that those people who are starving with no roof over their heads should be told to use renewable energy for their power needs? i.e wind turbines?? Is that a joke? I dont understand the logic there. Human life comes before the environment for me.

I firmly believe that a solution to the energy problem rests with Fusion Power. This is some decades away but I think it will in the future solve ALL energy needs. It can produce massive amounts of power with no emissions and no waste. The only issue with it is containing very high temperatures. The cleanest power possible basically. This should be priority in the Scientific world in my view.

Back later........

Edited May 10, 2007 by Darkman

[Essan]

Limiting air travel, removing dependency on oil, wanting enough power without using Nuclear, wanting battery powered cars, wanting crippling tax rises, wanting the third world to embrace windpower, wanting to end floridation of water supplies, wanting roads regulated in favour of fixed line public transport, wanting to live in wooden houses, wanting everyone to recycle, wanting punitive charges on normal bin collection, wanting no incineration, wanting no landfills, wanting to curb globalisation, wanting by proxy to inhibit the movement of free capital, wanting countries to purchase an element that is naturally occuring in the atmosphere - Carbon...................Why not start with this.

So, you wish to protect the planet by, for example, not recycling anything? Isn't that one of the simplest, easiest ways of making a difference at no cost to yourself?

As for removing dependency on oil ..... I take you work for an Iranian Oil Company do you? Why else would anyone want us to be so reliant on foreign nation, with whom we're not exactly on friendly terms, for our main energy supplies?

And as for air travel - fine. Fly as much as you like. Just stop moaning to me about warmer nights, hazy skies and 'chemtrails' :o

btw you missed out the daft idea the anti-environmentalists have for saving the world by covering every bit of the planet in windfarms and by chopping down the rain forests to grow soya and other crops to turn into biofuels

[PersianPaladin]

Thanks for the responses. TWS asked me what were the 'asspirations' i.e things that were desirable for environmentalists but unlikely to happen. The problem is there is not enough clarity on how to deal with individual issues involved such as those ive already listed. Some examples are just due to hypocrisy - Take Energy for example. I can gaurentee that the vast majority of those that want to protect the environment are against Nuclear power also - which is clean form of energy. They actually believe that the power needs of the World can be met with renewables. I think this is just off the wall. Thats just one example.

Take the third world as another example. Countries that are yet to develope. Does anyone here seriously think that those people who are starving with no roof over their heads should be told to use renewable energy for their power needs? i.e wind turbines?? Is that a joke? I dont understand the logic there. Human life comes before the environment for me.

I firmly believe that a solution to the energy problem rests with Fusion Power. This is some decades away but I think it will in the future solve ALL energy needs. It can produce massive amounts of power with no emissions and no waste. The only issue with it is containing very high temperatures. The cleanest power possible basically. This should be priority in the Scientific world in my view.

Back later........

What do you mean power 'needs'? I think the vast majority of power produced in the world is the result of 'want' rather than 'need'.

Again...we need to discuss what 'development' actually means. What path are you talking about? Is there just one linear path to 'development'?

As for fusion power...yes it sounds interesting but I feel that no material has yet been devised to contain such high temperatures; and I'm not sure if any can...given the need to generate temperatures several million degrees hotter than the sun!! Also; external power is needed to excite the atomic nuclei to bond without natural resistance....what power source will that be?