Overhype on global warming

[Bobby]

I feel like a rant.

I am starting to get fed up of virtually every advert on the TV now becoming an advert about the company's green environmental credentials. There's been an absolute explosion in recent months. The government are also jumping on the bandwagon, as are the media. You can't go or do anything now without someone telling you how green they are and how you should be green too.

Now, as you all know, I am a big believer in AGW, and I do care about the environment and want to protect it. I do get the feeling though these days that this massive explosion in caring is a bit artificial. It reminds me of the Madeline case - basically it's one big caring contest, with each person trying to outcare the other. It's a status symbol these days to show off your green credentials and it makes me feel ill.

Not only that though, it's becoming counter productive to actually protecting the environment. How are people supposed to take environmentalists seriously when they are putting on massive concerts such as Live Earth so a bunch of people can sing a few songs and use the stage as a way to sell more records, expecting to save the planet in the process?

I believe this is where a lot of scepticism people have towards global warming comes from, they are becoming utterly fed up of being saturated by these awful artificial "green" people, and fed up of being force fed global warming everywhere they look. People are going to and do react negatively to this, brewing great amounts of hostility and scepticism to global warming.

I long for the days when people who said they cared about the environment really did care, instead of using it as a way to enchance their status. The media is also joining the frenzy by writing loads of articles to appeal to the "green" bunch, to sell more papers.

End of rant.

[PersianPaladin]

I agree with that to an extent...but we must remember to keep AGW away from the world of politics and monetary gain. Its a strong observation of trends, and a warning call for us to reduce our selfish ways.

The term 'Global warming' has merely become part of the commercialization of eco-consciousness....its all false really though. If people really were eco-conscious they would be living in balance with the land and its carrying capacity; would not be wasting resources, having needless concerts, over-usage of power and electricity, excessive flights, excessive consumption, etc. Its really about trying to find alternative means of wasting just as much as we do....but with fuels that don't release as much CO2. Sadly, other aspects of the environment are damaged in return (e.g. rainforest biomes for eco-fuels, etc).

The world is full of hypocrites....and we are all like that; albeit some more than others. Whenever a politican or a business tries to take the moral highground; its commercial exploitation of green issues causes it to fall flat into the floodplains of its own moral baseness.

Edited July 24, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[Thundery wintry showers]

Society often isn't good at recognising that appearing to "show" respect for something doesn't necessarily mean that the person has genuine respect for it. For example, a person observing a one-minute silence may be interpreted as showing respect for the individuals who lost their lives, but in reality, it might be more out of respect for the authority figure who said "observe the silence, do as I say".

Politics and money/economics seem to be the main barriers to constructive action, unfortunately. There is much abuse of the environmental cause to further other agendas.

Another problem is also the way the environmental argument is presented.

If I was in charge of that branch of the media, I'd be spreading a general message along these lines: "The balance of scientific evidence suggests that human activity is probably contributing to climate change. Although there is a lot of uncertainty over this, doing nothing is too risky an option, given the likely repercussions if our emissions are significantly contributing. In addition, it makes sense to reduce fossil fuel consumption because of various other pollution issues, and the fact that our oil resources are finite."

What I generally hear from the media is "Humans are causing global warming by releasing lots of CO2 into the atmosphere and we're all going to die and every weather extreme, including snowstorms and sub-zero temperatures, is caused by global warming".

[HighPressure]

Its really refreshing to read such sensible posts from supporters of different sides of the debate and I agree with almost every word written above.

As I have said on many of my postings I am a sceptic on the issue, that does not mean I don't believe just that there is not quite enough evidence to nail down the lid and support the IPCC findings on Climate change. With that said I don't think there is much doubt that the climate is changing and that as humans we may well be playing a part in that the extent of which I still think is still to be found.

I think the media and our government are responsible for hype which is not for the good of us or our planet but entirely for their own aims. This is counter productive and is creating more residence to a change in our ways then anything else, you could almost call them double agents as they appear to be helping the otherside far more than they are helping environmentalism.

Yes as the global junk creators we need to clean up our act on a whole range of issues of which CO2 is just one. We, that's our media and government need to be honest enough to admit that changes in our behaviour are just not going to be that easy with a host of social factors to consider, not just in the UK but globally. A few quid on car tax, £10 on a plane trip just what is that all about? What's it for what is going to achieve, how are these measures plus a pop concert going to help the UK let alone the rest of the world meet any CO2 reduction targets. In the 1980's when CFC's were proven to be destroying the Ozone layer its use was banned, the government did not say lets charge another 50p for a arosole and stick £10 on the price of a fridge.

There is a lot of ramming home to the individual about carbon foot prints and rubbish disposal etc, but very very little in the way of this going towards industry which create the initial products? The reality of this is that our government cannot afford to attack at source because UK manufacturing is dwindling jobs are being lost and they have billions of pounds of tax payers money rapped up in subsidises keeping them here. The UK government along with most other world governments needs cars to built and sold, needs us to buy them and use them, they may claim they don't but they do. Its the same story with air travel, expanding airports mean more jobs and more taxes being paid, this is why there are plans to double UK air traffic capacity over the next 25 years, the government wants it.

The media want stories simple as that GW sells or gets viewers, these are commercial companies with profits to make sensationalism sells, maybes and possibles don't.

I get so frustrated with those who support AGW but are so blinkered they cannot understand or accept what the rest of us are going on about!

This is a genuine olive branch between a sceptic to all AGW believers there is a lot of common ground between us

Edited July 24, 2007 by HighPressure

[The PIT]

Sadly the public is now switching off. The Government spin is responsible for this as they use it as a smoke screen to justify tax rises to pay for items like the war in Iraq and general uneffiecies in the administration of many Government agencies.

This what the public is getting

Too dry. Global Warming

Too Wet. Global Warming

Too Cold. Global Warming

Too Windy. Global Warming

Not enough Wind. Global Warming

Too much Dew. Global Warming

Too many Hurricanes. Globa Warming

Too Few Hurricanes. Global Warming.

Hailstorms. Global warming.

You can swap Global warming for any new name tag they like to place on the problem but the Politicains and Scientists (Who need the grants) have got all the angels covered. Sceptics are treated as the modern racist and jumped on from a great height.

Myself like many others on here aren't really qualified to make a Judgement. I can read papers from both sides and they all sound convincing. All I can say there maybe a problem but no one knows 100% if it's all man made or mainly natural with a little bit of man made input.

I wish I had a Tardis and could go into the future and find out what the truth is.

[Devonian]

Sadly the public is now switching off. The Government spin is responsible for this as they use it as a smoke screen to justify tax rises to pay for items like the war in Iraq and general uneffiecies in the administration of many Government agencies.

This what the public is getting

Too dry. Global Warming

Too Wet. Global Warming

Too Cold. Global Warming

Too Windy. Global Warming

Not enough Wind. Global Warming

Too much Dew. Global Warming

Too many Hurricanes. Globa Warming

Too Few Hurricanes. Global Warming.

Hailstorms. Global warming.

You can swap Global warming for any new name tag they like to place on the problem but the Politicains and Scientists (Who need the grants) have got all the angels covered. Sceptics are treated as the modern racist and jumped on from a great height.

Myself like many others on here aren't really qualified to make a Judgement. I can read papers from both sides and they all sound convincing. All I can say there maybe a problem but no one knows 100% if it's all man made or mainly natural with a little bit of man made input.

I wish I had a Tardis and could go into the future and find out what the truth is.

But, the problem is, if someone like me is to be honest, and I do try to be, then I have to say that if you change the way the atmosphere 'blocks' the outward movement of LW radiation (heat if you like) that will change both the weather and the climate. Again, change the weather and the climate - all of it.

So, would you have me lie, or tell the truth? I'd would, honestly, like to know.

Its really refreshing to read such sensible posts from supporters of different sides of the debate and I agree with almost every word written above.

As I have said on many of my postings I am a sceptic on the issue, that does not mean I don't believe just that there is not quite enough evidence to nail down the lid and support the IPCC findings on Climate change. With that said I don't think there is much doubt that the climate is changing and that as humans we may well be playing a part in that the extent of which I still think is still to be found.

I think the media and our government are responsible for hype which is not for the good of us or our planet but entirely for their own aims. This is counter productive and is creating more residence to a change in our ways then anything else, you could almost call them double agents as they appear to be helping the otherside far more than they are helping environmentalism.

So, you seem to be saying there is a problem, but that govt saying and acknowledging this is wrong. They should try to tackle it by denying it?

Yes as the global junk creators we need to clean up our act on a whole range of issues of which CO2 is just one. We, that's our media and government need to be honest enough to admit that changes in our behaviour are just not going to be that easy with a host of social factors to consider, not just in the UK but globally. A few quid on car tax, £10 on a plane trip just what is that all about? What's it for what is going to achieve, how are these measures plus a pop concert going to help the UK let alone the rest of the world meet any CO2 reduction targets. In the 1980's when CFC's were proven to be destroying the Ozone layer its use was banned, the government did not say lets charge another 50p for a arosole and stick £10 on the price of a fridge.

OK, what should we and what should govt do?

There is a lot of ramming home to the individual about carbon foot prints and rubbish disposal etc, but very very little in the way of this going towards industry which create the initial products? The reality of this is that our government cannot afford to attack at source because UK manufacturing is dwindling jobs are being lost and they have billions of pounds of tax payers money rapped up in subsidises keeping them here. The UK government along with most other world governments needs cars to built and sold, needs us to buy them and use them, they may claim they don't but they do. Its the same story with air travel, expanding airports mean more jobs and more taxes being paid, this is why there are plans to double UK air traffic capacity over the next 25 years, the government wants it.

This is the problem, what's the solution?

The media want stories simple as that GW sells or gets viewers, these are commercial companies with profits to make sensationalism sells, maybes and possibles don't.

I get so frustrated with those who support AGW but are so blinkered they cannot understand or accept what the rest of us are going on about!

I honestly don't. You seem to be saying there is a problem, attacking those who want to address the problem but not offering anything else as an alternative?

This is a genuine olive branch between a sceptic to all AGW believers there is a lot of common ground between us

Well, in that spirit please answer my questions

[Osbourne One-Nil]

You know, I'd REALLY admire a company who admitted that their new "green" thinking came purely from a realisation that there may be a profit in it.

[VillagePlank]

I am entirely sick of it. Completely.

I am told (by the media, Greenpeace, and a whole host of other 'authorities') to lead a green lifestyle, to offset carbon emmissions, to do this and to do that. I'm told to buy seasonal, I'm told to buy green, I'm told to buy ethically, I'm told to buy locally, I'm told to buy recycled.

What about buying less?

Source

[Devonian]

I am entirely sick of it. Completely.

I am told (by the media, Greenpeace, and a whole host of other 'authorities') to lead a green lifestyle, to offset carbon emmissions, to do this and to do that. I'm told to buy seasonal, I'm told to buy green, I'm told to buy ethically, I'm told to buy locally, I'm told to buy recycled.

What about buying less?

Source

I'm not sure what you're saying? Are you saying we need to do things but you'll only do them if you're urged to do them rather than being told ( erm, who has told anyone, it's all urging anyway?).

So, if there is a flood coming and you're told to leave a riverside property you'll dig in your heels but if you're urged you'll leave?

Edited July 25, 2007 by Devonian

[Hiya]

I feel like a rant.

I am starting to get fed up of virtually every advert on the TV now becoming an advert about the company's green environmental credentials. There's been an absolute explosion in recent months. The government are also jumping on the bandwagon, as are the media. You can't go or do anything now without someone telling you how green they are and how you should be green too.

Now, as you all know, I am a big believer in AGW, and I do care about the environment and want to protect it. I do get the feeling though these days that this massive explosion in caring is a bit artificial. It reminds me of the Madeline case - basically it's one big caring contest, with each person trying to outcare the other. It's a status symbol these days to show off your green credentials and it makes me feel ill.

Not only that though, it's becoming counter productive to actually protecting the environment. How are people supposed to take environmentalists seriously when they are putting on massive concerts such as Live Earth so a bunch of people can sing a few songs and use the stage as a way to sell more records, expecting to save the planet in the process?

I believe this is where a lot of scepticism people have towards global warming comes from, they are becoming utterly fed up of being saturated by these awful artificial "green" people, and fed up of being force fed global warming everywhere they look. People are going to and do react negatively to this, brewing great amounts of hostility and scepticism to global warming.

I long for the days when people who said they cared about the environment really did care, instead of using it as a way to enchance their status. The media is also joining the frenzy by writing loads of articles to appeal to the "green" bunch, to sell more papers.

End of rant.

Perfectly put. Once or twice I've had people look down on me for "not caring about the environment" because I disagree with the regurgitated media spout on climate change from the media they come out with during a general conversation. I normally just laugh at them and tell them they don't know what they're talking about. Since at least they can't report me to someone because they suspect I'm not green enough.

[jonboy]

Intresting topic. The real issue as I see it is that the media be it print or visual can only report in sensationalist terms so any fact or sensible comment is lost within the hype. This in turn makes the populace fear what is happening and rather than doing something about it they turn and blame goverment for their woes.

This can beclearly seen at present with the floods. I am sure if you overlayed maps of todays floods with those of historic times they would be very similar, the diffence is that there are more houses in those areas. Its not that these houses have been built there in the last 10 or twenty years they have been built there over the last 50/100years and this has occured because originally the river was a means of transport but has become a pleasant location a desired place to live. Are we going to change that because it may flood every 50 or 100 years of course not. If we look at cost of repairing these properties that have been flooded of say £10000 every 50 years then that is £200 a year ( less than the cost of a bottle of wine a week!!) yet the media talk about us spending billions to improve flood defences or improve drainage. There needs to be a reality ckeck on how we respond to these events and rather than continue to blame GW as a socirty we should actually start to take some responsibilty for our decisions ie thats a nice house oh yes its in the flood plain and therfore it might flood but I'm willing to take that risk and the consequenses if it occurs.

I could go on about sustainability or other enviromental issues but in a nutshell we are a consumer led society and until that changes then these isuues will always be disscusses in a negative way. We need to remember the old adage of you reap what you sow.

[Devonian]

Perfectly put. Once or twice I've had people look down on me for "not caring about the environment" because I disagree with the regurgitated media spout on climate change from the media they come out with during a general conversation. I normally just laugh at them and tell them they don't know what they're talking about. Since at least they can't report me to someone because they suspect I'm not green enough.

I hear you, seriously I do, but, as I've said above, what are people like me to do? Lie or tell it how it is (and ghg's are fact)?

There is a sense of the boy who cried wolf in this thread. But, for me, the moral of that tail is twofold, 1, don't exaggerate (again I/we try not to), 2, there was a flood.

As I've said, I try to tell the truth. If I get sick of anything it's that people like me who try to do that get labelled as we do (scaremongers, alarmists and worse).

So, there are two sides to this.

Intresting topic. The real issue as I see it is that the media be it print or visual can only report in sensationalist terms so any fact or sensible comment is lost within the hype. This in turn makes the populace fear what is happening and rather than doing something about it they turn and blame goverment for their woes.

Sounds like reasonable explaination to me. What's the answer?

This can beclearly seen at present with the floods. I am sure if you overlayed maps of todays floods with those of historic times they would be very similar, the diffence is that there are more houses in those areas.

I'm not sure you're right

Its not that these houses have been built there in the last 10 or twenty years they have been built there over the last 50/100years and this has occured because originally the river was a means of transport but has become a pleasant location a desired place to live. Are we going to change that because it may flood every 50 or 100 years of course not. If we look at cost of repairing these properties that have been flooded of say £10000 every 50 years then that is £200 a year ( less than the cost of a bottle of wine a week!!) yet the media talk about us spending billions to improve flood defences or improve drainage. There needs to be a reality ckeck on how we respond to these events and rather than continue to blame GW as a socirty we should actually start to take some responsibilty for our decisions ie thats a nice house oh yes its in the flood plain and therfore it might flood but I'm willing to take that risk and the consequenses if it occurs.

Indeed. I live on a hill - turns out it's sensible. I think there is an element of those who live by river wanting to be bailed out by us all when they get wet - for doing something not sensible.

I could go on about sustainability or other enviromental issues but in a nutshell we are a consumer led society and until that changes then these isuues will always be disscusses in a negative way. We need to remember the old adage of you reap what you sow.

Ok, and I've asked this, how is this to be done? By not pointing out the problems? By not campaigning? By there not being FoE or Greenpeace?

For me blissful ignorance isn't a answer.

Edited July 25, 2007 by Devonian

[Essan]

I'm not sure what you're saying? Are you saying we need to do things but you'll only do them if you're urged to do them rather than being told ( erm, who has told anyone, it's all urging anyway?).

I think the point VP was making (and if so I agree with him ) is that adverts urge us to buy these or do that because it's better for the environment/combatting GW - when in reality it would be even better if we weren't quite so materialistic and consumptious all the time - half the things we buy we don't need!

If we only bought or used what we really needed we could reduce CO2 without worry. And before anyone starts - I'm not advocating going back to the Iron Age. Just asking whether we really need to drive into the city next Saturday to buy 6 dresses in the Sales, 3 or which will never even be worn.... Or whether we need to have 6 lights on in the room, just because 'they look nice' when 2 would do just as well?

As for companies jumping on the green bandwagon - well, if you ran a business and you could boost sales and profits by emphasising your 'green' credentials, what would you do? On which note, I would urge all people to stop buying environmentally damaging Ikea and other modern furniture and visit your local antique centre where you can buy 100+ year old furniture that'll last another 100 years, doesn't have to be put together and is guranteed not to have any vital screws missing, keeps it's value, does not contribute a single microgram of extra CO2 because it was made a long time ago, and is more environmentally friendly in every respect than any new furniture, period. I know a very place in Evesham is anyone is interested......

Edited July 25, 2007 by Essan

[Devonian]

I think the point VP was making (and if so I agree with him ) is that adverts urge us to buy these or do that because it's better for the environment/combatting GW - when in reality it would be even better if we weren't quite so materialistic and consumptious all the time - half the things we buy we don't need!

If we only bought or used what we really needed we could reduce CO2 without worry. And before anyone starts - I'm not advocating going back to the Iron Age. Just asking whether we really need to drive into the city next Saturday to buy 6 dresses in the Sales, 3 or which will never even be worn.... Or whether we need to have 6 lights on in the room, just because 'they look nice' when 2 would do just as well?

As for companies jumping on the green bandwagon - well, if you ran a business and you could boost sales and profits by emphasising your 'green' credentials, what would you do? On which note, I would urge all people to stop buying environmentally damaging Ikea and other modern furniture and visit your local antique centre where you can buy 100+ year old furniture that'll last another 100 years, doesn't have to be put together and is guranteed not to have any vital screws missing, keeps it's value, does not contribute a single microgram of extra CO2 because it was made a long time ago, and is more environmentally friendly in every respect than any new furniture, period. I know a very place in Evesham is anyone is interested......

Of course you're right.

But...

When it come to putting these ideas into practice? Well, you can just do it as an individual - in which case everyone else carries on as before and the problem is addressed in 2300 AD. Or you start to urge people - and they resist and the problem is addressed in ...2300 AD. Or you make them do it, all hell breaks out and, after a god allmight struggle, the world is a better place.

Shrug. People try to make this a better world and all they get is (at best) flak.

[VillagePlank]

I think the point VP was making (and if so I agree with him ) is that adverts urge us to buy these or do that because it's better for the environment/combatting GW - when in reality it would be even better if we weren't quite so materialistic and consumptious all the time - half the things we buy we don't need!

Yes, that was exactly the point I was making.

When it come to putting these ideas into practice? Well, you can just do it as an individual - in which case everyone else carries on as before and the problem is addressed in 2300 AD. Or you start to urge people - and they resist and the problem is addressed in ...2300 AD. Or you make them do it, all hell breaks out and, after a god allmight struggle, the world is a better place.

So what is the point, then? Is the notion of improving the Earth for future generations a moral imperative? On what basis? Have we forgotten to ask (excuse the cliche) not whether we could but whether we should?

Edited July 25, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Yes, that was exactly the point I was making.

Well, of course I agree with you - and I could go on about old cars, not knowing what a plane is...

Now, the question I pose - again - is how to we get to that desirable destination? I don't think it's by knocking those who say it would be a good idea. I do agree there is much lip serve being paid to the 'environment' problem atm, but that doesn't (to me) mean those pointing out the problem(s) and offering solutions are the ones in the wrong.

Edited July 25, 2007 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

Now, the question I pose - again - is how to we get to that desirable destination? I don't think it's by knocking those who say it would be a good idea. I do agree there is much lip serve being paid to the 'environment' problem atm, but that doesn't (to me) mean those pointing out the problem(s) and offering solutions are the ones in the wrong.

Yes, of course, as long as what is being said is not alarmist and exaggerated which, normally, is not the case anywhere outside the tabloid press. First of all we have to determine what the 'desirable place' actually is. Is the world really going to be a worst place if it were, say, 1.5C warmer? (Me playing devil's advocate, here)

[Devonian]

Yes, that was exactly the point I was making.

So what is the point, then? Is the notion of improving the Earth for future generations a moral imperative? On what basis? Have we forgotten to ask (excuse the cliche) not whether we could but whether we should?

Erm, no , not in my case.

But, I haven't come up with any reason why we should not do something about the 'environment'. What reason could there be? Who cares? Leave it to future generations? I need more widgets? I need more foreign holidays? I need to eat even more than I do? I want a car the size of a tank?

No, (and I am only giving my opinion in a debate!) no, I want none of those things for this planet. For me I want a planet as it was, or better, than when I came into it. That I feel is my moral duty.

(And before some says it, no, I'm not a green quasi religious nut thank you!)

Yes, of course, as long as what is being said is not alarmist and exaggerated which, normally, is not the case anywhere outside the tabloid press. First of all we have to determine what the 'desirable place' actually is. Is the world really going to be a worst place if it were, say, 1.5C warmer? (Me playing devil's advocate, here)

Ahh, good question.

The answer is, perhaps not. But, of course, 1.5C is (I suspect you know this ) one of a range of predictions. My view (garnered from others more expert than me) is that more than 2C most certainly is a problem - and 2C is also well in the 2-4C range thought likely. So, maybe you just feel lucky?

One other point. Do you think labelling things that aren't either alarmist or exaggerated as said (and, clearly, getting people to believe that) might be a good strategy for those not wanting action on CC? I do

[VillagePlank]

No, (and I am only giving my opinion in a debate!) no, I want none of those things for this planet. For me I want a planet as it was, or better, than when I came into it. That I feel is my moral duty.

Therein lies the problem.

I might not want to live on a planet where anaesthetic was a bottle of whisky, where my life expectancy is about 40 years, where dysentry and cholera are widespread, where smog fills the air. At which point of this planet's history is your ideal time to rollback to? Do you really want to manage the planet where it is known that wherever we try to manage it we screw it up?

Quality and viability of (human) life have a cost. That cost is technology, and the development of technology pollutes.

(Still being devil's advocate, here)

One other point. Do you think labelling things that aren't either alarmist or exaggerated as said (and, clearly, getting people to believe that) might be a good strategy for those not wanting action on CC? I do

Normal VP opinion follows ...

I reckon that reducing our impact on this planet can only be a good thing. This will have consequences, and will affect the natural world as we back of from it. The only way of managing the Earth is to fence it off and shoot anyone who ventures in.

In strong contrast to others, I think politicising the issue might be the way, especially when it starts applying to taxation issues. Of course, the argument lies that those who have more money can pollute more. But then areas such as Chelsea will end up being a toxic dump, and areas like Hackney will thrive with longer life expectancy. Darwinism at it's best. Market forces at its best.

Edited July 25, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Therein lies the problem.

I might not want to live on a planet where anaesthetic was a bottle of whisky, where my life expectancy is about 40 years, where dysentry and cholera are widespread, where smog fills the air. At which point of this planet's history is your ideal time to rollback to? Do you really want to manage the planet where it is known that wherever we try to manage it we screw it up?

Hang about, where on earth did I say anything about rolling back, or indeed any of the above? This is the whole problem, what gets to me! We get threads complaining about what's said, but it come down to it's people like me who get misrepresented! So, in the end it becomes people like me 'want to send us all back to the stone ago'. NO WE DON'T! Neither do I want to manage the planet - I want the opposite, to leave it alone, to stop using it as a dustbin.

Quality and viability of (human) life have a cost. That cost is technology, and the development of technology pollutes.

(Still being devil's advocate, here)

Of course, but advanced technology pollutes less. People like me want quicker advancement (and it can be done) , NOT, to go back to the stone age

[VillagePlank]

For me I want a planet as it was, or better, than when I came into it.

As it was when? Sounds like a suggestion to rollback the years to me.

Edited July 25, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

As it was when? Sounds like a suggestion to rollback the years to me.

Ok, I see what you mean. I'm talking about the whole planet not just humanity. I'm talking about leaving the planet alone - it will then recover. For example, I don't see leaving fisheries alone, so stocks recover to the level seen (say) when I was born, as 'rolling back'- would you?

[VillagePlank]

Ok, I see what you mean. I'm talking about the whole planet not just humanity. I'm talking about leaving the planet alone - it will then recover. For example, I don't see leaving fisheries alone, so stocks recover to the level seen (say) when I was born, as 'rolling back'- would you?

Yes I agree with philosophy of action, here. Fence it off and shoot anyone who ventures in. The only problem is, is that, for instance, over fishing has almost certainly created niches for other species which (i) might eat all the new cod in the North Sea, (ii) Get eaten by all the new cod in the North Sea which would affect any other reliant species.

We have already made our impact. It is too late to go backwards. It has always been too late.

I agree that fencing off is the right way to go, but any expectation that nature will heal itself, and return, say, to the same balance that existed 30 years ago, I believe, is in error.

[HighPressure]

Well, in that spirit please answer my questions

Yes 'DEV' I will write a response later today after full consideration.

Edited July 25, 2007 by HighPressure

[Devonian]

Yes I agree with philosophy of action, here. Fence it off and shoot anyone who ventures in. The only problem is, is that, for instance, over fishing has almost certainly created niches for other species which (i) might eat all the new cod in the North Sea, (ii) Get eaten by all the new cod in the North Sea which would affect any other reliant species.

We have already made our impact. It is too late to go backwards. It has always been too late.

I agree that fencing off is the right way to go, but any expectation that nature will heal itself, and return, say, to the same balance that existed 30 years ago, I believe, is in error.

It's not fencing of, it's backing of, in a managed (not controlling, helping) way.

But, yes, the damage is great. All the better reason not to carry on regardless imo. And, please, don't fix on the fixed date I gave, I just want to see the pressure taken off the old globe.

Of course, and sadly, it's not going to happen - I'm old enough to see that. The planet gets into a worse and worse state year by year. People like me get more and more pilloried. I don't see it as progress.

New post (odd software this BB software).

Here's something interesting from the beeb

'People are being told to wear jumpers instead of relying on patio heaters, in an attempt to cut carbon emissions.

The Energy Saving Trust has urged retailers to stop selling the heaters after a report suggesting their use will almost double over the next year. '

I've highlighted two words. I think it makes my point rather well.

Edited July 25, 2007 by Devonian