Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Some bad news...


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
  • Weather Preferences: Any Extreme
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
No, China is not as foolish as the UK or anyone else. They want to grow and they will do whatever it takes to have the strongest economy.

Now this is wear the EU could put an enviromental tax on Chinese goods making them expensive and protecting there own industries at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

I said I'd bow out of this debate, the apathy to want to do something if it hurt our economy/individual pockets/choices was making me increasingly cross; I recognise my ability to rant from a soapbox serves no constructive purpose. But, someone else posted a BBC report this morning and I quote from it:

IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri said the report was "stunning".

"Human society as a whole has to look for changes in consumption patterns," he told reporters at a news conference in the Thai capital.

And:

But, observed Dr Pachauri, economic incentives are needed to drive any technological transformation.

"Technology alone will not be enough," he told BBC News, "and in any case, technology has a clear connection with government policy.

"Incentives... must come from taxes or a carbon price."

Guess I'm not alone afterall in believing a fundamental change of perspective of consumer consumption has to be enforced. DDT was dangerous; it was banned. CFC's were bad; they were banned. Passive smoking is dangerous; smoking in confined public places, it's been banned. Leaded petrol; not a good idea, it was banned. DDT was cheap and effective, ditto CFC's, passive smoking dismissed with "you don't like it, walk away, it's my right", leaded petrol, what's all the fuss about, what's the difference. Lead based paint, solvent based paint, creosote, yada yada yada; the list goes on and on. All banned and enforced because at the end of the day, voluntary changes are ineffectual and long in coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Even without climate change Capitalism has its 'end'. The aim of capitalism is to control your market (become a monopoly) and when this occurs then the 'free market' no longer exists as all competition is gone.

Capitalism will fall and we will end up as a progressive society meeting its 'needs' but not at the cost of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
Even without climate change Capitalism has its 'end'. The aim of capitalism is to control your market (become a monopoly) and when this occurs then the 'free market' no longer exists as all competition is gone.

Capitalism will fall and we will end up as a progressive society meeting its 'needs' but not at the cost of others.

I sincerely hope that's not just a dream we both share. Needs instead of wants being the primary driver would make such a massive difference to the world as a whole. I truely believe the only people who profit from the endless drive to have more, are those who produce the "more" we so desperately strive to obtain. The endless treadmill of working harder, longer hours to gain the money required to pay off the credit we've borrowed to buy the gadgets the media/manufacturer have convinced us our life will be enriched by, if we have them. I trained and worked in the publishing/advertising trade for years; it's a soulless world of insecurity designed to be self-serving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China will never become as rich as us first world countries, there simply isn't enough resources. As China sucks in more and more resources, reserves will rapidly dwindle, and the supply just won't be able to keep up. Prices will rise and China will come to a halt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

There's some discussion of this issue on Grist: http://gristmill.grist.org/user/David%20Roberts

Check out the section 'Two kinds of environmentalism', and the comments. I also recommend the link to Curtis White's essay(s); they address what is being discussed on this thread directly. I won't be so immodest as to recommend my own blog. Oops; did I just do that?

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
There's some discussion of this issue on Grist: http://gristmill.grist.org/user/David%20Roberts

Check out the section 'Two kinds of environmentalism', and the comments. I also recommend the link to Curtis White's essay(s); they address what is being discussed on this thread directly. I won't be so immodest as to recommend my own blog. Oops; did I just do that?

:)P

Thanks P3, never heard of him before but my god, he talks a lot of sense. Or should that be he shares the same perspective as myself, the same one I've tried to make here; he's altogether far more eloquent than I though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
But then all the manufacturers will do is pass the extra tax burden onto the consumer.

Manufacturers CAN cut there impact on the environment AND save money whilst doing so, but in my experience, there is a lot of ignorance in industry when it comes to the environment.

Just wanted to flag that post up again as it is highly relevant to the 'two types of environmentalism'. To get the industries to be more efficient, we would almost certainly need to apply some 'stick policies' to them, so as to force change in view of the ignorance, but how would we do that in a way that would encourage them to make positive changes instead of accepting the extra cost and passing it to the consumer?

Maybe those articles have a possible answer. While I haven't analysed the issue as much as they have, I do find myself agreeing with many of their general points- especially the idea that we need changes to the way our capitalist system works, not just for environmental reasons, but also ethical/social reasons. I reckon that both industries and the general public would need to make changes (so in that sense I fall in between the two 'camps') However, I still don't see why voluntary 'carrot' policies should be abandoned, as if nothing else, they help provide people with potential alternatives for when the 'sticks' are brought in.

My main worry is that when the Government brings 'sticks' in, they may do so purely from an economic free-market perspective, ignoring social factors. We may be discouraged from doing anything that pollutes unless it's work-related, but if it's work-related, it may be deemed "necessary" because we all have to work, and work contributes directly to the economy. Under that scenario our society would become even more oriented around work and profits at the expense of social factors. Driving is probably the most stark example- I predict that under that scenario, driving for work would still be socially acceptable, but people who drive for pleasure would be considered the lowest of the low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City
Even without climate change Capitalism has its 'end'. The aim of capitalism is to control your market (become a monopoly) and when this occurs then the 'free market' no longer exists as all competition is gone.

Capitalism will fall and we will end up as a progressive society meeting its 'needs' but not at the cost of others.

There is too much needless consumption in the world. See this video: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NhJ7uf47F0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
There is too much needless consumption in the world. See this video: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NhJ7uf47F0

Thanks PP.

Shopping; the new religion, aaaaaaaaaaargh spare me from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent

I don't think anyone should be disheartened by the way in which our world works, because I think there are many ways we can work with it and improve our environment. I just see as most important that we do at least acknowledge the way the capitalist world is and the fact that governments will always be up to getting a few extra quid in by way of tax which will never be given back.

I much favour working in partnership with the people and especially big business and I will give you an example: In the early 1990s formula one banned the use of Turbo charged engines, they were 1.5ltr developing about 600bhp. The change back to normally aspirated 3.5V6 engines was the nail in the coffin for turbo charger technology, so lets change this back F1 is what ends up in our cars. Lets not see tax on large engine vehicles, lets see a gradual reduction in the size of engine (or its emissions) allowed on our roads, this way we will see 4x4s and luxury car manufactures coming up with the technology.

There are many things that can be done better by phasing out rather than taxation, lets see a plan to phase out standard lightbulbs over the next 3 yrs for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent

Something else I would like to add, after working in the water industry for 15 years maybe we should also target companies like Thames Water that lose 30% of their product after consuming the electricity to pump it and treat it. Lets see some sort of efficiency drive here as at the moment the consumer pays their electricity bill in full then you can add @450million quid a year profit to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire
  • Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire
Something else I would like to add, after working in the water industry for 15 years maybe we should also target companies like Thames Water that lose 30% of their product after consuming the electricity to pump it and treat it. Lets see some sort of efficiency drive here as at the moment the consumer pays their electricity bill in full then you can add @450million quid a year profit to that.

Interesting reading.....

OFWAT Leakage Report

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

Very interesting thread this; I've seen quite a number of angles offered that I had never considered, the "phasing out" idea in particular.

Overall, I reckon that when it comes to taking action, it's probably not enough to consider just certain ideas- we probably need to make use of a combination of many different ideas, including most of those expressed in this thread.

Re. our capitalist system, in case anyone got the wrong idea, I would certainly not be in favour of abolishing capitalism altogether (which may have been implied in the links above); what I generally advocate is using it more in moderation, being "capitalist but with a conscience" as it were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
I think certain inititives like banning plastic bags or at least having to pay for them are so much more productive then taxing people into oblivion. Its the little things that provide big results IMO.

Darkman, occasionally you stagger me. Can you explain the difference between charging for something that used to be given away, and adding an additional charge onto something by way of a levy. I'm looking forward to this one.

Something else I would like to add, after working in the water industry for 15 years maybe we should also target companies like Thames Water that lose 30% of their product after consuming the electricity to pump it and treat it. Lets see some sort of efficiency drive here as at the moment the consumer pays their electricity bill in full then you can add @450million quid a year profit to that.

Lordy. HP, if you worked in the industry for that long then you'll understand the economic break point of running a leak proof system. It's like running a bus network where people never have to wait more than two minutes for a bus, or a restaurant where all items on the menu are always available. Thames do have high leakage, they also have a difficult area to manage. There might be a case for slightly better performance, but I'll tell you what, I bet Thames lose far less than the burghers of London use hosing down gardens and cars. Go visit a desert tribe and see how many of themwash their camels or grow lawns.

I much favour working in partnership with the people and especially big business and I will give you an example: In the early 1990s formula one banned the use of Turbo charged engines, they were 1.5ltr developing about 600bhp. The change back to normally aspirated 3.5V6 engines was the nail in the coffin for turbo charger technology, so lets change this back F1 is what ends up in our cars. Lets not see tax on large engine vehicles, lets see a gradual reduction in the size of engine (or its emissions) allowed on our roads, this way we will see 4x4s and luxury car manufactures coming up with the technology.

There are many things that can be done better by phasing out rather than taxation, lets see a plan to phase out standard lightbulbs over the next 3 yrs for example.

The turbo techniology was banned for different reasons not entirely unrelated to ensuring that racing was a competitive spectacle. There's irony in that given your starting line about capitalist motive in a sport funded entirely by entertainment payback (in many forms).

I agree with you re light bulbs though. Doubtless the Irish will protest on the basis this infringes civil liberties.

Public transport in this country is a joke if you don't live (or work) in the middle of a city.

....

The main problem is that bus routes all converge in the centre of towns. If you want to go somewhere that isn't on the bus route from your home you have to go right into a town, change buses and then come back out again.

If I was in charge of public transport policy, the first thing I would do is create a database that had the home and work address of everybody in the country. I would then work out (in both time and distance terms) how long people's work journeys would be by car and by public transport. It would then be a simple computational excercise to see what extra bus and train routes would need to be added to give more people a real alternative to their cars.

Well, there's a reason for that which really doesn't take much fathoming. I do sympathise of your journey is around, not into, a city. However, you could always move house. We DO have choices, it's just that we routinely expect not to have to make sacrifices. Life, it seems, is oncreasingly seen as a one way bargain.

Your theory regarding solving the problem is rather idealistic. First of all people move, retire, die, change job. Second up people work different hours. Third up, would they use the transport anyway? There's little point investing in a database that will never be stable to determine how to supply a product for which the demand is unknowable. If you banned all cars then that might be the way forward. In any case, public providers do carry out surveys of traffic and demand, and the general flows of people around even fairly localised areas are quite well known, if the many holders of data (DoT, local Councils, HA, tranpsort providers, planners etc.) put their heads together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
  • Location: Steeton, W Yorks, 270m ASL
I like many others on this forum lurked in the background for quite sometime before daring to post. ...I guess I'm in the wrong forum folks.

Jethro, you shouldn't have; you talk much sense. More power to your fingers and thumbs.

In answer to much of the foregoing: taxing the end consumer is easier. It's a blunt instrument but it does two things. It communicates intent (or, disingenuously, the intent that any authority wants to be seen to have) and it nudges behaviour, this latter depending on the extent to which there are substitutes and the level of taxation. Taxing producers, as some argue, is the same. Do you for one moment believe that British Gas will not pass on their tax charges in bills. Wake up.

One of my current clients, a well known high street presence in the oil industry, is throwing huge amounts of money at sustainability and renewables. They are not alone: corporate UK is waking up quickly to the whole green agenda, and the developed world generally (given the power of multinationals) is similarly placed. If your industry relies on a finite product then you'd be fairly careless in your governance NOT to have half an eye on future strategies. Hence car manufacturers, oil companies, users of oil derivatives (e.g. plastic, man-made fibres, rubber, chemical companies, pharma companies - and they then all have downstream customers too), energy companies; ALL are investing heavily in alternatives because it makes sense against future scarcity, it makes sense against forthcoming legislation, and it makes sense if you make the big breakthrough and can protect it.

It's simple really. If we don't find alternatives before current supplies run out then tax and simple supply:demand will force prices up. If we do find alternatives then taxes will be used in both carrot and stick measure to drive behaviour towards them. Globally, carbon trading is coming, in some shape or form we will end up there, even if we have to wait for one or two climate disasters to nudge us over the edge. At least in that latter case Darkman and co will no longer be able to bleat on down the "what warming, what impact" road.

What does the future look like? Many of us may be generating our own electricity, and receiving subsidies to invest to do so, even feeding any excess back into the grid. We will use mixed fuel cars, which may accelerate less dramatically than a modern sporty number. And we may pay slightly more for many consumer goods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire
  • Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire
Well, there's a reason for that which really doesn't take much fathoming. I do sympathise of your journey is around, not into, a city. However, you could always move house. We DO have choices, it's just that we routinely expect not to have to make sacrifices. Life, it seems, is oncreasingly seen as a one way bargain.

I think you are missing the point completely, *I* could move house but that wouldn't really address the actual problem which is crap public transport. Are you suggesting that it's going to be easier for everyone in the country that doesn't live close to their work to move house or job than to add more public transport routes?

The point you make about people maybe not using the public transport if it were provided does have some validity, however, they definitely aren't going to use it if it doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
  • Weather Preferences: Any Extreme
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
Darkman, occasionally you stagger me. Can you explain the difference between charging for something that used to be given away, and adding an additional charge onto something by way of a levy. I'm looking forward to this one.

Lordy. HP, if you worked in the industry for that long then you'll understand the economic break point of running a leak proof system. It's like running a bus network where people never have to wait more than two minutes for a bus, or a restaurant where all items on the menu are always available. Thames do have high leakage, they also have a difficult area to manage. There might be a case for slightly better performance, but I'll tell you what, I bet Thames lose far less than the burghers of London use hosing down gardens and cars. Go visit a desert tribe and see how many of themwash their camels or grow lawns.

The turbo techniology was banned for different reasons not entirely unrelated to ensuring that racing was a competitive spectacle. There's irony in that given your starting line about capitalist motive in a sport funded entirely by entertainment payback (in many forms).

I agree with you re light bulbs though. Doubtless the Irish will protest on the basis this infringes civil liberties.

Well, there's a reason for that which really doesn't take much fathoming. I do sympathise of your journey is around, not into, a city. However, you could always move house. We DO have choices, it's just that we routinely expect not to have to make sacrifices. Life, it seems, is oncreasingly seen as a one way bargain.

Your theory regarding solving the problem is rather idealistic. First of all people move, retire, die, change job. Second up people work different hours. Third up, would they use the transport anyway? There's little point investing in a database that will never be stable to determine how to supply a product for which the demand is unknowable. If you banned all cars then that might be the way forward. In any case, public providers do carry out surveys of traffic and demand, and the general flows of people around even fairly localised areas are quite well known, if the many holders of data (DoT, local Councils, HA, tranpsort providers, planners etc.) put their heads together.

Okay plastic bags. Charging will make sure you're more likely to use the last one until it falls to bits. I tend to try and use them over and over again but ever os often I leave them in the car boot. Charging would make me go back and fetch them.

Water. Two points.

Leakages should result in a fine.

2nd point. Public service companies need a different operating system. Share holders need taking out of the equation. Yes they need to make a profit so that new technoligies and repairs can be made but no money is lost paying out share holders.

Racing need to change so that cars are given a fixed amount of fuel for the race. Every year this is reduced. This would feed back eventually to conumser car until it's replaced by a none pterol vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
Darkman, occasionally you stagger me. Can you explain the difference between charging for something that used to be given away, and adding an additional charge onto something by way of a levy. I'm looking forward to this one.

SF you never stagger me on this debate. A Plastic bag tax is tiny compared to some things that have been mooted. When the plastic bag levy is introduced - like here - you will get cardboard or carrier bags instead so therefore no-one actually pays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
  • Weather Preferences: Any Extreme
  • Location: Sheffield South Yorkshire 160M Powering the Sheffield Shield
SF you never stagger me on this debate. A Plastic bag tax is tiny compared to some things that have been mooted. When the plastic bag levy is introduced - like here - you will get cardboard or carrier bags instead so therefore no-one actually pays.

|Duynno looking at the number of plastic bags littering up the country side it isn't a small problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
|Duynno looking at the number of plastic bags littering up the country side it isn't a small problem.

We had exactly the same problem. Now its gone. You wont see one plastic bag on the streets because shops give out cardboard type bags and noone ever pays for a plastic bag except the odd person of course. Its so much cleaner.

Edited by Darkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent
Lordy. HP, if you worked in the industry for that long then you'll understand the economic break point of running a leak proof system. It's like running a bus network where people never have to wait more than two minutes for a bus, or a restaurant where all items on the menu are always available. Thames do have high leakage, they also have a difficult area to manage. There might be a case for slightly better performance, but I'll tell you what, I bet Thames lose far less than the burghers of London use hosing down gardens and cars. Go visit a desert tribe and see how many of themwash their camels or grow lawns.

The turbo techniology was banned for different reasons not entirely unrelated to ensuring that racing was a competitive spectacle. There's irony in that given your starting line about capitalist motive in a sport funded entirely by entertainment payback (in many forms).

I agree with you re light bulbs though. Doubtless the Irish will protest on the basis this infringes civil liberties.

Sorry SF but I dissagree with most of what you say!

I understand the idea of tax but simply do not trust our political leaders (all parties) to deliver the goods and going on past records they will probably just squander the money. So its not my preferred option and not one that I think will help bring the public onboard as pro AGW action, but will just build hostility against it and make what is a very sensitive subject even more problematic.

My ideas regarding Turbo chargers was simply we do not have small engine luxury cars or 4x4s on the market when the technology is available. It is clear from fuel duty that people who can afford these vehicles will buy them, and am totally opposed to a system which allows the rich or better off to buy themselves out of their obligations. This is why I much prefer phasing as a system because it forces everyone including the manufacturers to conform because if they don't the luxury car market would die out.

As for water especially Thames water I don't want to hijack this thread, but I have a vast amount of knowledge of what is one of the most complex systems in the world. Just some things you should know: Water companies provide leakage figures to OFWAT there is no independent verification except by audit trail, Thames keep 2 sets of figures one for OFWAT and one for operational use simply because the 2 do not match. It is common place for flow meters to be set to a reading that is not accurate. OFWAT do not include raw water abstraction in their reports and therefore have no idea the difference between that abstracted and that supplied to customers. OFWAT are seeking more stringent powers to allow them to collect more specific data. I don't want to bore you but I can assure you that Thames Water under RWE were totally dishonest highly manipulative of both data and budgets to suit their own internal requirements.

Edited by HighPressure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion

One of the big problems I see is with regards are relationship with third world/developing nations. Many of these rely on exporting goods, particularly foodstuffs to the UK. However, not only does this sometimes threaten our own farmers etc (imported goods often being cheaper) but in order to produce these foodstuffs, the developing nations are destroying vast tracts of rain forest which is not only results in one of the largest contributions to GHG emissions but also leads to changes in rainfall distribution and has other local environmental impacts. Added to which, the ships or aircraft bringing these goods into the UK also contribute to the problem.

Ideally, we should stop such imports, grown our own foodstuffs and discourage the use of products such as soya and palm oil produced in regions that were formerly rainforest. But this means we're preventing this countries from acquiring income and improving their standard of living and infrastructure ....

Catch 22

What's more important: preventing climate change (which hits third world countries the hardest)? Or helping 3rd world countries develop stable and prosperous economies? (which in turn makes them less vulnerable to climate change)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Interesting point, Andy: does this suggest that we need to move away from the 'cash-crop' model of development? In this model, there needs to be something these countries can produce, which has added value on the world market, and which will generate foreign exchange, work and growth opportunities. The problem is, the highest value is often associated with the worst kinds of environmental depredation. There's also the problem of supply and demand; they are, in most cases, supplying what we (in the developed countries) allegedly want: cheap goods, low-priced food...

So, in part, our low inflation rate is dependent on the exploitation of vulnerable resources and ecosystems.

There are so many strands of interrelationship now between the various economies of the world that it is very difficult to act for the best, if the main criteria for success is increased wealth, or greater economic development. An example of this is Fair Trade; already, what is a simple and decent idea in principle has been hijacked (but only in a few cases) by unscrupulous organisations to generate a 'brand identity' with green credentials, taking no account of the effects of their investment.

I am sure there are people better qualified than me to explain these things, but this is an example of why it is argued that dealing with climate change comes at a cost; it isn't the cost of building stuff, but the cost of 'constraining' growth on a global scale. Increased wealth can (but not necessarily; look at Nigeria) improve the lives of millions and contribute to a decent chance of a life for people where disease, water, conflict and adverse climate make life hard. Climate change has an impact on all of these things, too. So the challenge is to find ways to increase wealth, health and stability via economic growth in developing countries, whilst avoiding cutting down rainforests, building coal-fired power stations, or developing land in flood plains and coastal strips.

Is this impossible? Certainly not. Will it involve cost? Certainly. Who is going to pay? There is only one way to 'pay' for this - to absorb the cost in the global economy, which means that those with more than they need have to be persuaded that, ig they aren't willing to share out some of their hard-earned excess, the problems are unlikely to be solved.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
Catch 22

What's more important: preventing climate change (which hits third world countries the hardest)? Or helping 3rd world countries develop stable and prosperous economies? (which in turn makes them less vulnerable to climate change)?

I often think in these situations, rather than addressing whichever one is 'more important', it's worth looking at middle grounds and compromises, trying to achieve as much of the best of both worlds as possible. Of course, it's highly unlikely that we can address both of them perfectly, which makes decision-making awkward as many people seem reluctant to make decisions (especially if they involve challenging a 'status quo') unless they are perfect.

P3 is probably right with regards needing to absorb the cost in the global economy. Developing countries, in the meantime, probably need to be encouraged to grow in ways that are relatively non-damaging to the environment etc, even though it may slow their growth rate in the short term (but not discouraged from growing altogether). To be honest, I don't think that reducing the extent of consumerism, in moderation, would necessarily be bad for our overall quality of life- while I agree that wealth is very important as a measure of development, I feel it's too simplistic to see it as the be-all and end-all, for example people who work 80 hours per week often end up with masses of wealth, but no life outside of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...