Religious Intolerance

» redback - What's it mean for us?

Ben

I know this is not clearly related to 'religious intolerance' (unless links are needed) but you have an interest in it and our new PM is getting all excited about his role in the Bali Road Map et al...maybe this will encourage discussion. Your blogs can't link discussions to them.

If we can talk politics in 'Protestantism', surely it's OK to broaden the social issues debate here?

-- posted by redback

» redback - What's it mean for us?

In response to What's it mean for us? posted by redback:

"Climate change is the variation in the Earth's global climate or in regional climates over time. It involves changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere over durations ranging from decades to millions of years. These changes can be caused by dynamic process on Earth, external forces including variations in sunlight intensity, and more recently by human activities."

'climate change' is also a handy catch-all phrase that is real trendy right now and despite things that may have happened over millions of years for all other reasons, YOU can do something about it NOW. But will it be too late by 2015, 2020 or 2050...the first from Ben, the latter from targets set by Australia...to reduce emissions.

Has religious intolerance in some countries side tracked us, taken our eye off this main ball game in town?

"Scientists at the CSIRO are now working on ways to stop sheep and cattle breathing out so much methane, which may also help make the animals healthier and bigger."

I'm unclear about the actual value of carbon trading to do more than set compromises.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - What's it mean for us?

In response to What's it mean for us? posted by redback:
.
A large number of Fundamentalist Evangelicals are not in the least way concerned about Climate Change as they believe that whatever might happen on such a planetary scale is all 100 % under God's control.
.
So, they really are not going to be bothered with such talk.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - What's it mean for us?

In response to What's it mean for us? posted by pink101:

.
Indeed, the Second-Comers believe it's all been predicted - scripture can't be changed. For them, the sooner the world ends, the better.

-- posted by Migisi

» Ben Hughes - What's it mean for us?

In response to What's it mean for us? posted by redback:

It's fine to discuss the issue of climate change here. I think it's an important issue everyone needs to be involved in but too few people dismiss it.

I also feel that 'climate change' has become too broad a term to use and people are using it all over the place to mean global warming, sea levels rising and just destruction of our planet.

I think one of the issues is that despite a fluctuating climate during the history of the world, most scientists now agree that human actions have speeded up the effect and unless we do something, it will be too late to reverse it.

It seems that too many people are thinking in the short-term and aren't bothered (or maybe it's too difficult) to think of what will happen in 50-100 years' time - the wiping out of animal, the effect on the globe and, if nothing else, the impact of prices if oil runs out and we're not prepared to replace it.

"A large number of Fundamentalist Evangelicals are not in the least way concerned about Climate Change as they believe that whatever might happen on such a planetary scale is all 100 % under God's control."

I agree with this comment to some extent. While I don't which specific groups are saying what, I do feel that some people think God is in control so it doesn't matter. What I feel they fail to realise is that God gave us the world to look after and it is US who's destroying it, not Him, whether he knows about it or not. Our freewill is to blame.

What do you think?

In terms of agreements, I think the arrogance of some countries like the US shows that the battle of tackling climate change is going to be uphill. I can't believe how they've stood in the way of different international agreements and am so pleased they finally gave way in Bali. Now it's about getting China, India and the other countries on board.

But I don't know the best way to do it. I'm quite new to all of this and maybe carbon trading would be a good start. But it needs a positive and sustained effort from EVERYONE and not just those who feel they want to do something.

What does everyone else think?

» pink101 - What's it mean for us?

In response to What's it mean for us? posted by benhughes:

.
America is in an ideal situation to tackle the problem of climate control now that our industrial ability has been taken down to such a low level.
.
We could make concessions to industrial concerns to rebuild manufacturing operations in such a way so as to set high standards for green production. At the same time, we could put high tariffs that equalize market prices on imported products that are not manufactured using new protocols.
.
This is a LEGITIMATE use of government. That would achieve--at least--two very important objectives; (1) more jobs for Americans, and (2) a better use of greener energy.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - What's it mean for us?

In response to What's it mean for us? posted by benhughes:

The Earth has seen an Ice Age come and go with minimal human interference? Maybe there was a molten age and volcanoes and hot mud pools of NZ are a residual effect of that?

We rely on recorded history and our selective memories of past events to decide if this was the worst winter, flood etc in history. Despite the pre-existence of 'fluctuations' man believes we are speeding up the effects. I'm not disagreeing with that...I'm interested in what the comparative assessment is ie what world would we be living in now...climate change wise...without the industrial revolution etc. It's not just an 'arrogance' of nations such as the USA but of mankind.

The Catholic Church is still against birth control so are we to blame them if we're now over-run with rugrats and carpet crabs. Impoverished nations are still producing babies they can't afford but need...to keep their nation 'alive'. Australia pays a baby bonus of $4000 (populate or perish) and there's a 'courageous' suggestion we replace it with a one-off levy and $800 pa carbon offset tax. Kinda like the tariff idea of Pink's only far less palatable.

It's reported: ""Worldwide, we each produce about 4 metric tonnes of CO2 - but the problem is, there's more of us doing it." This is an average, isn't it? Maybe some who join in action-less gabfests average/produce more. Is methane gas part of this?

Is it our inalienable right to produce children unfettered, or should we consider the future we are offering our offspring and what carbon imprint they may impose on others.

Those who have always lived in deserts or are enjoying summers while others are suffering winters may not see the world through the same prism. Maybe those relatively few who make the most profit can ease off a bit given the damage they cause to the majority.

OK...this favours the zero-based argument. What attitudinal and behavioural changes are needed and what difference can we realistically expect? Will Islam and Christianity put aside their differences for the common cause?

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - What's it mean for us?

In response to What's it mean for us? posted by redback:

.
And so the argument goes.
.
So, who gets to live in a world where the elites have decided there are too many of us?
.

-- posted by pink101