+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: I am sick of the whole climate change bullshit

  1. #1
    Content Generator AllWalker's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Antipodea
    Posts
    1,479

    Default I am sick of the whole climate change bullshit

    I've been sick of it for a while, but it has been in the news quite a lot recently. Climate change scientists being consulted by climate change ministers to combat climate change skeptics... the whole thing is a bunch of crap.

    Newsflash to the media and the entire Western civilisation:

    Climate change is not the only environmental issue there is. It probably isn't the biggest environmental issue, or if it is, it doesn't mean we can ignore the others. Sometimes I feel like building a machine that removes 1 kg of carbon from the atmosphere while dumping 1 kg of mercury into a nearby river system. The way people talk about the environment, it seems like people would think that's a good thing.

    As for climate change skeptics, just shut the fuck up. I don't know whether anthropomorphic global warming exists. I don't care. It is irrelevant. If we act like it is, we will take measures to reduce wasteful consumption of energy, stop dumping our shit into the atmosphere (which, even if it creates no global effects, will produce local ones - ever hear of acid rain, for example?) and generally try to clean up our act. These are good things.

    And hey, if you are right about the global temperatures being linked to solar activity you WILL BE PROVEN RIGHT. But if you are right, it will be a disaster to environmental movements worldwide - if AGW turns out to be wrong, the obsessions of everyone over the past decade or so will be seen as a waste. Which is wrong, for reasons I have already said.

    If the environmental movements are to produce any real results, they need to stop framing every. single. discussion. around global warming. If it turns out to be false, they lose. If they are right but we reverse global warming, they lose - Y2K would have produced problems had it not been fixed, but people felt annoyed about being led to believe disaster was guaranteed. If global warming is true and it hits us hard, the best they can do is say "I told you so".

    Focus on green energy. Focus on stabilising the population. Focus on increasing the efficiency of agricultural and manufacturing techniques. Create awareness of real issues on a local level. Do these things and the environmental movement will actually, amazingly, achieve something apart from preaching and soothsaying. Stick to the current cult-like obsession with greenhouse gases, carbon footprints, melting icecaps and the like and the movement will, inevitably, collapse.

    By the way, a scientist saying that it is a "travesty" that they can't account for certain patterns means there is a flaw in the model being used, not the whole theory. That entire leaked email "scandal" was a huge load of crap, but hey, at this point in my life why should I expect people in the media to be scientifically literate, objective or rational?
    Something tells me we haven't seen the last of foreshadowing.

  2. #2
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by AllWalker View post
    Focus on green energy. Focus on stabilising the population. Focus on increasing the efficiency of agricultural and manufacturing techniques. Create awareness of real issues on a local level. Do these things and the environmental movement will actually, amazingly, achieve something apart from preaching and soothsaying. Stick to the current cult-like obsession with greenhouse gases, carbon footprints, melting icecaps and the like and the movement will, inevitably, collapse.

    Agreed, completely. There are some legitimate differences in opinion about what directions green energy should take, but when you realize that there's an annual smog cloud caught against the Himalayas that's killing people in India every year it's time to look at that, before carbon footprints, IMNSHO. It's a Hell of a lot easier to clean smog out of emissions than it is to eliminate them.

    ISTM that there are two ways to look at China and India (and to a lesser extent other developing economies, I'm picking on them because they're so fucking huge, not because I think they're uniquely non-green): Either you do what the current green types in the US seem to be doing, and scream because they're not following current European, or American standards; or you accept that poorer economies can't afford to shift immediately to what might be considered 'best' practices, and work with them to put in what they can, now, with the idea that once those are in, you can lobby for better and more effective controls. Going all or nothing is going to default to the nothing option. With horrid consequences.

    By the way, a scientist saying that it is a "travesty" that they can't account for certain patterns means there is a flaw in the model being used, not the whole theory. That entire leaked email "scandal" was a huge load of crap, but hey, at this point in my life why should I expect people in the media to be scientifically literate, objective or rational?
    Two comments here: people in the media haven't been literate, objective, nor rational about lots of issues for ages, now. I'm not a Faux News fan, but I sure don't trust the rest of those bastards, either, to tell the whole story, if it touches their interests. Secondly, why should people in the media be held to a higher standard for scientific literacy than the public holds itself to? Their audience doesn't care - why should they?

  3. #3
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Okay, then, educate me a bit - what environmental issues are bigger than global warming? If you are saying that global warming isn't happening, sure - obviously there must be bigger issues. But I don't get the sense from your OP that you are saying you don't believe in global warming.* it sounds to me more like you are saying "stop whining and trying to generate controversy, we get that global warming might be a problem but we really ought to be doing all the right environmental things anyway, so stop scaremongering and get to work on improving the environment, your 'sky is falling' act is getting old."

    *I think you'll agree with me when I say that "believing in global warming" is such a ridiculous phrase to type. Believing in global warming is like believing in god -- these concepts are either true or false, but what you and I believe has zero bearing on the truth.

  4. #4
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Hatshepsut View post
    Okay, then, educate me a bit - what environmental issues are bigger than global warming? I
    Well for me the greatest environmental problem is uncontrolled population growth.

    We are currently at over 6.8 billion people and this will continue to rise to 9 billion by 2050 or thereabouts.

    Simply put we will use resources faster than they can be replenished. As food, water and energy become scarcer and more expensive wars will be fought. Ultimately resulting in massive environmental damage and potentially a huge loss of life.

    This is a much greater threat to the continued survival of our species than a few degrees average temperature increase and a rise in mean sea levels.

    Deniers argue that science will come up with a solution, but I disagree, I work in an area related to renewable energy and it an be very disheartening at times seeing the (lack of) progress being made.

    If we take some politically unpopular steps now and at least stabilise the population we have a chance of mitigating the worst of the problems, if not, then like foxes and rabbits we will have a population explosion followed by a catastrophic collapse.
    Last edited by Walker in Eternity; 30 Nov 2009 at 06:49 AM.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  5. #5
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    To say we have had no impact on the world would be foolish, but to say we are totally responsible for the world's climate change smacks of arrogance about our place on the planet.

    Some of the impacts we can see like desertification in Africa can be linked back to the impact of man on the area, tree felling and increased herds being examples.

    CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer. Well it looks like that has always been there to a degree. Strange we haven't heard much on it lately seeing as at one point it was getting smaller.

    The email's released about global warming are being seized as proof that there is no truth to the figures. The world is a lot cooler than it used to be a thousand years ago. There are stories of grapes being grown by Hadrian's wall, which certainly doesn't happen nowadays. There also used to be an Ice Age where Europe was covered in Ice. When did we cause the Ice to retreat?

    The big problem is that there is so much crap around on both sides that sifting through to find objective facts is almost impossible. Computer Modelling of things like this are easy to run, but also easy to break.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  6. #6
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    This is more a problem of reporting and sound bite media.

    Most environmental groups are well aware of every point the AllWalker made in his Op. As a most basic example you can find my own posts on the Dope talking about the other reasons to reduce carbon emissions and how important greater efficiency and renewable energy is on its own separate from the AGW issue.

    The news reports though are far from detailed and far from scientific. (On both sides of the issue.)

    You'll also see my Americancentric viewpoint that oil consumption fuels terrorism and national defense issues. An unrelated to AGW issue that works to complement AGW reduction. The quicker we collectively develope technologies to get away from the infernal combustion engine the better the entire world will be.

    CIAS, where specifically do you see the UN reports of major green groups suggesting that "we are totally responsible for the world's climate"?

    To the best of my knowledge the Ozone hole was expected to grow smaller as we reduced the amount of CFCs released from the peak of the 70s. You are not noting a problem that was false but a solution that has worked. (though that was before my time as an active Green.)

    If you want to filter through the crap, don't rely on the BBC and CNN but instead use resources like Scientific America or National Geographic or New Scientist. They do the sifting in a responsible and scientific manner without the prejudice of Green Peace or the Sierra Club or other big Green groups. They of course do it with far more scientific knowledge than major news outlets.


    BTW: I am also a proponent of population growth is still our #1 problem and the one we are in no way ready to deal with as a global community. At least energy efficiency, renewable resources and reducing carbon is something we can handle.

  7. #7
    Elephant Myglaren's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington, UK.
    Posts
    944

    Default

    The best thing I have seen on the subject is Home.
    It seems to me to have a very well balanced view and is free of the hyperbole that accompanies many of the arguments proffered in support of theories on the subject.

    I think that climate change is cyclic, as CatInASuit proposes. I'm sure that volcanoes have an impact and that humans have made a contribution too, I'm not convinced about the degree of that impact as a proportion of the natural cycle.

    The most annoying thing is the bandwagon jumpers who appear to be completely clueless as regards facts, to them it is merely a political platform to further their own ends.

  8. #8
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by AllWalker View post
    As for climate change skeptics, just shut the fuck up. I don't know whether anthropomorphic global warming exists. I don't care. It is irrelevant. If we act like it is, we will take measures to reduce wasteful consumption of energy, stop dumping our shit into the atmosphere (which, even if it creates no global effects, will produce local ones - ever hear of acid rain, for example?) and generally try to clean up our act. These are good things.
    This is just absolutely ridiculous! You don't get to control what people do without taking a careful analysis of the costs versus the benefits (and even then, you must consider the violation of liberty). Now, talking about proven damage via climate change is one thing, but to completely dismiss it like this... It gets back to the root problem with much of the environmentalist movement (not saying with you, necessarily, or with anyone in this thread); the movement started first with a desire to limit the "excesses" of modern lifestyles and only then latched on to any possible damage as a means of furthering the "get closer to nature" agenda. Carbon dioxide-based climate change is the perfect excuse because everything involving human life involves "carbon"; it's a blank check to control almost any undesirable industry or behavior. Again, I'm not saying that you personally are using it as an excuse for social control, but those were the origins of the modern environmentalist movement.

    I am not a complete dismisser of climate change; it seems likely to happen over time (though current events have placed uncertainty over its severity), and I believe in countermeasures to stop it. But the most cost-effective counter measures are in areas like adaptation and geo-engineering, not in direct prevention of carbon emissions. It's basic economics, even setting aside all moral concerns over controlling the minutiae of people's lives, those options (like marine cloud whitening and stratospheric aerosol injections) are just cheaper.

    The problem is that you seem to want to panic now and cripple our current society, rather than waiting until we have a better understanding of the problems and better capacity to combat them. It's the equivalent of telling the British in the Industrial Revolution not to burn so much coal because of the environmental damage—the gains from proceeding at our current pace far outweigh any damage. We already have readily accessible renewable energy, and it's just a matter of time until fusion power generation is perfected. They'll be used when they become cost effective, i.e. when the oil actually starts to run out, and not before.

    Also, and this is the main reason I'm posting, the Malthusian myth of a catastrophic population boom is just that: a myth. There is no reason to think that human populations will continue to grow at their current rate for all time. Most estimates by demographers agree that global population will peak at 8-10 billion by the middle of this century and then begin to decrease. Overpopulation is not a global problem, was not a global problem, and will never be a global problem. Fertility rates extrapolated over time just don't back it up. It is a regional problem in some areas, but that could be easily fixed by open borders and population migration.

    The thing that galls me about the whole doom-and-gloom mindset is that it's so unnecessary. Humanity has a bright future ahead of it by all reasonable demographic estimates, one without need for constant sacrifices. We don't need to act like we're on the edge of disaster, and we certainly don't need to attack people because, if they're right, they'll "spoil the crisis".

    That's not to hand-wave away all environmental issues. There are indeed limited problems that do not threaten the species of humanity itself but cause harm on their own, like extinction and endangerment of many wildlife species. However, there are also free-market solutions to deal with these kinds of things that a) don't restrict people's daily lives and b) actually work. For example, take a typical "tragedy of the commons": a population of African elephants that faces danger from over-hunting. The problem is that if every tribe owns the elephants, no one really owns the elephants, and so no one has any special desire to protect them. Therefore, they kill as many as they want, and they all day. But what if you divide the elephants up and give each tribe its own portion of the elephants? No tribe is stupid enough to slaughter its own elephants, and the tribes aren't about to let anyone else kill their own elephants. Then, the elephants are kept down to a manageable, renewable population without restricting anybody. That's just one example; other issues like pollution can certainly do great harm to people and deserve a solution. But there are solutions, and freedom-promoting solutions (I provided that one just as an example to show that free markets don't equal burn-it-all), that don't require a permanent state of societal panic over the current Doom of the Month.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  9. #9
    Content Generator AllWalker's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Antipodea
    Posts
    1,479

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris View post
    This is just absolutely ridiculous! You don't get to control what people do without taking a careful analysis of the costs versus the benefits (and even then, you must consider the violation of liberty). Now, talking about proven damage via climate change is one thing, but to completely dismiss it like this... It gets back to the root problem with much of the environmentalist movement (not saying with you, necessarily, or with anyone in this thread); the movement started first with a desire to limit the "excesses" of modern lifestyles and only then latched on to any possible damage as a means of furthering the "get closer to nature" agenda. Carbon dioxide-based climate change is the perfect excuse because everything involving human life involves "carbon"; it's a blank check to control almost any undesirable industry or behavior. Again, I'm not saying that you personally are using it as an excuse for social control, but those were the origins of the modern environmentalist movement.
    Social control? Absolutely. I lost faith with Greenpeace the moment I realised they were preventing mines being opened in 3rd world countries, mines that would bring a village or region or country out of poverty.

    I am not a complete dismisser of climate change; it seems likely to happen over time (though current events have placed uncertainty over its severity), and I believe in countermeasures to stop it. But the most cost-effective counter measures are in areas like adaptation and geo-engineering, not in direct prevention of carbon emissions. It's basic economics, even setting aside all moral concerns over controlling the minutiae of people's lives, those options (like marine cloud whitening and stratospheric aerosol injections) are just cheaper.
    Well, that is very similar to what I suggest. The solution to these problems need to come from doing things smarter, not doing things less.

    The problem is that you seem to want to panic now and cripple our current society, rather than waiting until we have a better understanding of the problems and better capacity to combat them.
    I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite of this. I am critical of the panic, and I am critical of suggestions to cripple our society. Reread my suggestions to the environmental movement.

    It's the equivalent of telling the British in the Industrial Revolution not to burn so much coal because of the environmental damage—the gains from proceeding at our current pace far outweigh any damage. We already have readily accessible renewable energy, and it's just a matter of time until fusion power generation is perfected. They'll be used when they become cost effective, i.e. when the oil actually starts to run out, and not before.
    Which is why I am not overly concerned about an oil shortage. We can synthesise the stuff, it just costs 10 times as much. Running out of oil would be bad, but not the end of civilisation.

    Also, and this is the main reason I'm posting, the Malthusian myth of a catastrophic population boom is just that: a myth. There is no reason to think that human populations will continue to grow at their current rate for all time. Most estimates by demographers agree that global population will peak at 8-10 billion by the middle of this century and then begin to decrease. Overpopulation is not a global problem, was not a global problem, and will never be a global problem. Fertility rates extrapolated over time just don't back it up. It is a regional problem in some areas, but that could be easily fixed by open borders and population migration.
    But population migration is a bad thing. There are few regions in the world that could accept a massive and sudden influx of people. Open borders are, in this situation, not in a country's best interests.

    Besides, all other problems are compunded by overpopulation. We could have the dirtiest cars and the worst agricultural practises without much harm if the global population were a couple of million.

    The thing that galls me about the whole doom-and-gloom mindset is that it's so unnecessary. Humanity has a bright future ahead of it by all reasonable demographic estimates, one without need for constant sacrifices. We don't need to act like we're on the edge of disaster, and we certainly don't need to attack people because, if they're right, they'll "spoil the crisis".
    I really hope it's clear from my OP that I am being critical of both climate change skeptics and climate change fanatics. I hate soothsayers. Every generation has been populated by them, yet each one believes they are the one who will witness doomsday. For some reason, people hate uncertainty - if they believe the rapture will come in ten years, with massive deaths and rivers of blood, it seems to relax a lot of people for some reason.

    OTOH, nobody would act to do anything pro-environment if they didn't think their own personal survival, or that of their future great-grandchildren, depended on it.

    Like I said in the OP, I neither know nor care whether AGW is real or not. It doesn't matter, either way we need to clean up our act. But without these idiots saying in 12 years Antarctica will be the only inhabitable place on Earth, no one will lift a finger. Sometimes you need to work with ignorance, rather than fight it head on.

    That's not to hand-wave away all environmental issues. There are indeed limited problems that do not threaten the species of humanity itself but cause harm on their own, like extinction and endangerment of many wildlife species. However, there are also free-market solutions to deal with these kinds of things that a) don't restrict people's daily lives and b) actually work. For example, take a typical "tragedy of the commons": a population of African elephants that faces danger from over-hunting. The problem is that if every tribe owns the elephants, no one really owns the elephants, and so no one has any special desire to protect them. Therefore, they kill as many as they want, and they all day. But what if you divide the elephants up and give each tribe its own portion of the elephants? No tribe is stupid enough to slaughter its own elephants, and the tribes aren't about to let anyone else kill their own elephants. Then, the elephants are kept down to a manageable, renewable population without restricting anybody. That's just one example; other issues like pollution can certainly do great harm to people and deserve a solution. But there are solutions, and freedom-promoting solutions (I provided that one just as an example to show that free markets don't equal burn-it-all), that don't require a permanent state of societal panic over the current Doom of the Month.
    Hey, no argument from me. That elephant ownership thing is actually a really good idea - it would work, but requires little effort from us.
    Something tells me we haven't seen the last of foreshadowing.

  10. #10
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    I'm not a fanatic, and I know the human race isn't going to become extinct any time soon but I find there's an emphasis by many on "ZOMG NU-TECH" that will solve the problems where consumption definitely IS part of the problem (if one accepts Anthropogenic Climate Change) and consumption can be made greener/smarter. I started a thread recently on SDMB about clothes dryers in warmer climes and some peoples' opposition on there to using a clothes line struck me as ridiculous. I wasn't saying that it was all or nothing either just that it struck me as odd that people in places with near 365 sunshine wouldn't use the free energy that's available because it is seen as lower class. Ultimately, unless climate change goes completely out of control, it will be the world's poor who will bear the brunt of the trauma from climate change as indeed they tend to now. I agree that limiting the world's population (by carrot, not stick methods!) should be a bigger priority than it is.

  11. #11
    Oliphaunt Baldwin's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,031

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Walker in Eternity View post
    Well for me the greatest environmental problem is uncontrolled population growth.

    We are currently at over 6.8 billion people and this will continue to rise to 9 billion by 2050 or thereabouts.
    Absolutely. I never hear anything from politicians about the population explosion.

  12. #12
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    During the 1970s, the population explosion was the great impending disaster that people got hysterical about. I don't recall all of the predictions, but people were definitely saying things along the lines of "by 1990, the population will be six times what it is now, and 3/4 of the world will be starving to death!"

    Of course, that didn't happen - while I am not an expert on the subject, I think the Green Revolution pretty much saved the day. That, and the fact that some of the original predictions about exponential growth were simply wrong, either due to poor modeling or effective birth control campaigns or increased prosperity that led to natural drops in birth rates.

    I am not saying that population growth isn't something to be concerned about now. But I do think that the fact that in recent memory there was much hysteria that later proved unfounded may have an impact on how alarmed people get these days - at least, for politicians/leaders who are old enough to remember the 1970s well.

  13. #13
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    The Green Revolution is beginning to fail though. We need to get a lot smarter about water use, specific irrigation and smaller amounts of fertilization being used. Don't worry about what they said in the 70s. Worry about the fact that the population is still increasing and we are putting a high demand on the world. Maybe too high.

  14. #14
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Baldwin View post
    Absolutely. I never hear anything from politicians about the population explosion.
    Luckily for us there seems to be a growing movement in the UK against population growth. The Sir David Attenborough has recently joined the Optimum Population Trust and they have made a few public statements which have received national coverage. Not heard any comment from politicians yet, but it has to come sooner or later.

    The OPT's latest initiative involves offsetting carbon against birth control, not sure how the machanics of this actually operate, but if it raises the profile of the population explosion then it can only be a good thing.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  15. #15
    Member dark smoky eyes's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    DotAu
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Walker in Eternity View post
    Luckily for us there seems to be a growing movement in the UK against population growth. The Sir David Attenborough has recently joined the Optimum Population Trust and they have made a few public statements which have received national coverage. Not heard any comment from politicians yet, but it has to come sooner or later.

    The OPT's latest initiative involves offsetting carbon against birth control, not sure how the machanics of this actually operate, but if it raises the profile of the population explosion then it can only be a good thing.
    Has the Optimum Population Trust included a total ban on immigration as part of its recommended policy?

    If they have failed to do so then their policy stance on population control is logically inconsistent and, therefore, totally meaningless.

  16. #16
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by dark smoky eyes View post
    Has the Optimum Population Trust included a total ban on immigration as part of its recommended policy?

    If they have failed to do so then their policy stance on population control is logically inconsistent and, therefore, totally meaningless.
    I'm not familiar with the Optimum Population Trust, but if all they care about is Great Britain's population (which seems to be the case, as they invite visitors to the website to "campaign for a lower population in the UK") and not the rest of the world, they are being rather short-sighted. Global warming won't stop at the UK's boundaries, and the UK can be prosperous only to a point, if they successfully limit their population but it the entire rest of the world is falling apart from overpopulation.

    Population growth and global warming are world-wide problems. The only reason to focus in on one particular country is because it offers a means of maximizing the global impact - because that country is the worst offender, and/or you believe you can be most effective at making changes within those national boundaries.

  17. #17
    Content Generator AllWalker's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Antipodea
    Posts
    1,479

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Hatshepsut View post
    Population growth and global warming are world-wide problems. The only reason to focus in on one particular country is because it offers a means of maximizing the global impact - because that country is the worst offender, and/or you believe you can be most effective at making changes within those national boundaries.
    Sure, but there are two very good reasons to focus on your own country:

    1) To set an example. Once you have demonstrated that it is possible, other countries may follow suit. They may even borrow and adapt the techniques used, meaning that over time the Domino Effect results in a large chunk of the world following your lead,

    2) Because it's practical. China is a big contributor to both the world's population and pollution, but they have their own priorities, agendas and strategies. It is far easier and much more realsitic to aim for local reform rather than imposing a paradigm on an external nation.
    Something tells me we haven't seen the last of foreshadowing.

  18. #18
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by AllWalker View post
    Sure, but there are two very good reasons to focus on your own country:

    1) To set an example. Once you have demonstrated that it is possible, other countries may follow suit. They may even borrow and adapt the techniques used, meaning that over time the Domino Effect results in a large chunk of the world following your lead,

    2) Because it's practical. China is a big contributor to both the world's population and pollution, but they have their own priorities, agendas and strategies. It is far easier and much more realsitic to aim for local reform rather than imposing a paradigm on an external nation.
    Yep, those are good reasons - and they expand on the concept of working "where you can have the most impact." And as far as "setting an example" goes, it also can shield you from criticism - if British politicians speak out against policies in China, they can't be called on their hypocrisy by the Chinese, if they are also working at home to make changes.

  19. #19
    Aged Turtle Wizard Clothahump's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by AllWalker View post
    I've been sick of it for a while, but it has been in the news quite a lot recently. Climate change scientists being consulted by climate change ministers to combat climate change skeptics... the whole thing is a bunch of crap.
    A-FUCKING-MEN!!

    Well stated!
    Political correctness will be the death of our country.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by OtakuLoki View post
    ISTM that there are two ways to look at China and India (and to a lesser extent other developing economies, I'm picking on them because they're so fucking huge, not because I think they're uniquely non-green): Either you do what the current green types in the US seem to be doing, and scream because they're not following current European, or American standards; or you accept that poorer economies can't afford to shift immediately to what might be considered 'best' practices, and work with them to put in what they can, now, with the idea that once those are in, you can lobby for better and more effective controls. Going all or nothing is going to default to the nothing option. With horrid consequences.
    Don't blame the goddamn greenies for that, that shit is all on the AGW deniers. The sane folk are happy to see any improvements we can. The folks who are insisting that China and India change first are the people who are looking for a way out of acting on global warming who are pushing against treaties that don't hold China and India to higher standards. It's just a bullshit attempt to derail work towards making actual change.

    Besides, they may not be acting as fast as some people insist but China is now really taking leadership in areas like green buildings. Which constitutes yet another reason we're falling behind and the Chinese are pulling ahead.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    Oh, well, shit. It's a zombie thread being revived by a global warming denialist. Never mind.

  22. #22
    Member F-X's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    72

    Default

    I've been looking for this thread.
    "Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."
    Justin's Dad

  23. #23
    Member F-X's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    72

    Default

    And, the Avatar thing is hilarious.
    "Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."
    Justin's Dad

  24. #24
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Shouldn't you be out mowing the lawn?

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts