Religious Intolerance

» Ben Hughes - What's it mean for us?

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

You've raised a lot of points here.

In terms of the world we could be living in, I imagine it would be more stable climate-wise, so fewere fluctuations of extreme temperatures, fewer natural disasters like flooding and so on.
At the same time, if we hadn't had the industrial revolution in the 1800s, would we still have the standard of living we enjoy now? I suppose it's a trade off and now we've got it we won't want to give it back.

In this way I agree with you about the arrogance of mankind but I also feel that some countries come across like that too. Like the US wanted to put profit and production above the climate change issue (if I've got that right) which I think is completely arrogant and selfish.

The growing population means that there are more people to produce waste. If everyone cut down a bit there wouldn't be such an impact. I don't see it as a population problem (although blind attitudes to contraception don't help) but rather a stewardship issue - we should look after the world but we don't take as much care of it as we should.

I think that the world's religions would probably agree with this, even though you can also argue it from a secular point of view. What differences do they really have on this issue? Surely it's not a disagreement between religions.

Targets are useful for something to aim towards in terms of emission cuts etc. but they are too easily broken or too easy to opt out of. Does pure conscience work for world leaders? It might do to an extent, but what next?

» Ben Hughes - What's it mean for us?

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

"So, who gets to live in a world where the elites have decided there are too many of us?"

It would never work. China have tried a policy to reduce their population and it's ended up with a rising rate of infanticide.

It needs to be about how the population we have (and will get) look after things - use less, recycle more.

» pink101 - What's it mean for us?

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

.
The NeoCons seem intent on reducing the world's population.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - What's it mean for us?

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

Tis sorta unrelated for the easy reader, but I go to an amount of effort/discipline to reduce water usage and my next door neighbour who uses 6 times more, pays less than twice as much for it.

Are we (the world) talking about making a difference or nibbling at the motherhood "feel good" edges? We're told unless we (the world) do "something" before x date re climate change, it'll be too late?? For exactly what? Does something "practical" mean another committee or voting for Obama or an entire town leading by example?

Can we pin something down? Let's say climate change increases sea levels...

http://www.cs.ntu.edu.au/homepages/jmitr...

...and lower lying South Pacific islands become inhabitable. They're unimportant in the overall scheme of non-tourist things so probably more disposable than the USA. Say we have 50 years advance notice of this. Well, do we cancel permanent residency options as they arise now and build homes in other countries to allow for a more orderly movement of 'evacuees'? Or do we wait for say 20% of affected areas to go under to get more indicators of the risks that lie ahead for the unaffected us?

Should we implore tourists to visit the Great Barrier Reef while they still can ie well BEFORE 2030 at which time it is expected to be functionally extinct. Or do we explore ways to artificially retain its non-bleached colour to keep the tourist dollar. Do we explore with more urgency advances in medical research into skin cancers and other climate warming problems?

Or do we hang all our hope on one universally agreed strategy.

I see the limiting of babies drew fire here. So, does that mean the baby levy is THE option to consider? Or can we see problems with EVERY option?

I just think the fundamental change we apparently need requires fundamentally different attitudes and actions. Maybe fundamentalism now has a transitional place in our history? ABC

-- posted by redback

» Ben Hughes - What's it mean for us?

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

"Tis sorta unrelated for the easy reader, but I go to an amount of effort/discipline to reduce water usage and my next door neighbour who uses 6 times more, pays less than twice as much for it."

Do you have water meters in your country. In the UK, you have a water meter fitted which means you pay only for the water you use. The government are also having them fitted to all newly-built houses (I think) and some water companies are trying to make them compulsory to stop people wasting water. Is this a good idea to help reduce water wastage? At least it would be something practical.

"We're told unless we (the world) do "something" before x date re climate change, it'll be too late?? For exactly what?"

As far as I understand it, it will be too late to stop rising temperatures and their associated problems e.g. killing the animals in the seas, increasing the melting of the ice caps and increased flooding etc.

Like you suggest it could also increase some diseases like cancer.

It's not just about tourism, although some authorities might see it as that with the disappearance of important landscapes.

I suppose there are problems with every option but I think that there are some people who look for the problems rather than the solutions.

Like you say, fundamental change requires fundamentally different attitudes and actions. How we actually go about this is difficult.

» redback - What's it mean for us?

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

There is a strategic direction needed for change and a myriad of tasks that relate to it. Some leaders may be up to some strategies, some of us may be up to identified tasks. But so far, it seems "everyone has to do something about everything before they go to bed tonight. Just don't push for the details or expect any promises of a good prognosis" may also be 'an inconvenient truth'?

(WE refers to world) Let's say we CAN'T do anything about the rising sea levels out of all the things likely to impact on us. WHEN do we start thinking of eg relocation...or do we just come up with a Hurricane Katrina type response...and be "more prepared" because we'll have more body bags is a blunt example trying to pin down the type of strategic thinking.

I think many people are confused about "consequence". Sure, they may possibly see the link between their decisions of "5 minutes ago" and its visual effects BUT not the series of decisions they've made in their lives that got them to where they are today. And it's that thinking that flows on to crisis management.

Sure, THE industrial revolution occurred many years ago over many years. But there's been plenty of incremental changes since that no-one truly wants to unravel let alone by unanimous consent.
------------------------------

Do you have free access to water? All properties here have water meters but the water rates combine water usage and sewerage. Water usage in this State (NSW) costs $1.3390 per kL ie drinking water quality for all uses. I'm a very low user...about $5 per month.

Level 3 water 'restrictions' apply. I call it water regulation instead. Only 3 days per week usage for gardens before 10am and after 4pm (ie all night by default). My garden is 100% dependent on rain.

There is a $220 fine if anyone gets caught washing hard services such as their cars anytime but exemptions are available...exceeding 14000 so far. These exemptions are for routine uses.

One burst water pipe of the many on one average day more than undoes a lifetime of my effort. Desalination plants and treated sewerage are now on the cards and both sound...yummy!

-- posted by redback

» redback - carbon credits & trading

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

Carbon or emissions trading looks like its the major identifiable strategy but I'm happy to be wrong. I can't say it looks like leading to dramatic changes in the short term.

some explanation of it here:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...

And the first thing I see is increased prices and/or increased costs of production. The money gets put aside, does it, to fund the cost of committees or the cost of more energy efficient models?

Before we gett too far off course, Ben, what did you have in mind for your (action) group?

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - carbon credits & trading

In response to carbon credits & trading posted by redback:
.
I see a couple of wealthy Australians have used the fat obtained from their own bodies' liposuction to power a world class racing boat for eight miles. A non-carbon fuel source. Maybe they'll come up with some kind of an liposuction attachment that can hook fat people up to their automobile so they can eat and ride to their content while doing something to fight global warming?
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - carbon credits & trading

In response to carbon credits & trading posted by pink101:

ABC First I've heard of it!

I checked today and read it as a yarn with no Aussies at all...attributed to New Zealand...a foreign sovereign country across the Tasman Sea...but who knows if its an early April Fools Day story or not. Sounds like the crazy stuff countries across the Pacific would do.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - carbon credits & trading

In response to carbon credits & trading posted by redback:
.
My mistake. It was reported as New Zealanders. Please accept my apologies if that is a grievous error on my part.
.

-- posted by pink101