Jump to content

Work more, earn more, spend more


Recommended Posts

I doubt very much if The Daily Mail has changed.

There is enough been written by many people much more qualified than me on the subject of climatic change and apart from a few loners and crackpots they are all agreed on the fact that the climatic change  we are witnessing now is man made and that it's very urgent to act now to protect our childrens future.

 I don't see what your motives can be in trying to create doubt on the suject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Russet House:  There's a lot of things I don't know and can't explain. What I can tell you is - I became involved with the décroissance and antipublicity movements in France to actively do something  to fight against what I see as an accelerated suicide of the human race (no less)  instead of just indulging in  lamentation  and waffle. The suicide, in my view,  is due to our excessive lifestyles.

   The majority of my town ( 55 000 hab) are now in favour of massive restrictions on outdoor advertising and the ideas on leading a more sober lifestyle are making headway.  We've organised  15  antipublicity actions and three conferences  locally and media interest is very high, plus all the illegal  publicity devices (that were all urging peole to over consume) are now falling because of our actions in justice.

  Then I thought - what about the British residents in France? It's true that I've never met any in political or ecological meetings , but I've heard there's a lot of them around. So, I posted an entry about the campaign to clean up town entrances and then I got sort of sucked in to a very retro world of  mostly reactionary, individualist thinkers.

     I've been called 'a fool' 'an agitator' and been on the receiving end of a lot of abuse -   I'm now  stopping to concentrate on leading the local actions here in what's become my home town. Apparently, you don't even  live in France ...........and your comments are frankly unhelpful to the debate. (which I'm  hereby abandoning).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dear Russethouse,

The answer to your question is quite clear and easy.  I, myself, as a non-climate scientist, do not attempt to explain something like all the various climate changes for the past hundreds of thousands of years, nor for the past millions of years.  There are, however, many sites, books and authorities that do.  If you can't find any by Googling, PM me and I will send you some URLs.  Should you wish to believe those who say that there is nothing we can do about climate change, a tiny minority of climate scientists and various other cranks, then do so.  They could be right.  We will have to wait for decades to find out.  Me I would rather be safe than sorry.  I have read enough to satisfy myself that we have some impact on the climate.  I do not know how much precisely.  But my own convictions and views and search for alternatives ARE NOT totally based on climate change.  My search began long before climate change was a hot issue, although environmental questions of all sorts were important in my own search.  However, if you insist that I personally am the only place you can find anything about about it, that you have looked all over the web and not found one place that can explain it to you, I might take loads of time out of my attempts to write about things I DO understand fully, or fully enough, to go to those sites, bone up on the history of climate change and summmarise on this forum just for you.  More than likely, there are various schoools of thoughts and debates among climate historians, and I will have to summarize them all for you, even though I bet I won't understand all the details. 

On the other hand you could just go look for yourself, do your own resarch.  I prefer to talk about what I do know well rather than what I don't know well.  Or in many cases, like many items of high technology or complex scientific models, I choose who I defer to.  You make your choices, I make mine.  Have you really looked?  Or are you repeating some question someone told you to repeat endlessly to trick someone else.  Not me.  I have done a fair bit of reading, and made my choice.  But, forgive me for admitting it, much of the argument is beyond my knowledge.  I can't explain it to you.  Ask elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Ahem.......how about answering the question ?

In the meantime perhaps you can explain what caused global warming in Roman times or explain  (from the first link):

Furthermore, a study in Science October 2, 1998, refutes the claim that the current warming could only be caused by human activities.

[/quote]

I have never in my entire life of environmental and other activism met anyone on any side of the debate who ever claimed that only human activiites caused climate change.  This is a straw man of such massive proportions that I wouls have thought we can simply ignore it.  NO ONE who is an activist says this.  No one.  Find me someone who says that.  One person.  Actually you can find one person who says anything, find me three.

I have also never met anyone who says that this is the first and only time there has been climate change in the history of the earth.  No one says that either.  You are wandering in a forest full of trees that are imaginary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 Reply to PdF

In other words you choose to follow a path and having gone down it you cannot even look at another view or even question the science ?

Having got involved in this movement have you not asked the very questions I am asking ?

There is another view and a possibly a valid one, that does not IMHO mean we have to abandon initiatives to look after our planet, but perhaps we do have to get our role in the planets future in proportion.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gay you know you won't get a real answer. To be a non believer is to be a heretic and stupid. I wonder how many people in history have fought the system which was massively stacked against them and have been proved right in the end. Green Peace has turned in to a multi million dollar industry and has stopped being an activist group and become a political group so it has succumbed to power in the end. Don't forget being 'green' and global warming are now multi billion pound industries that everyone has jumped on board with.

I guess my problem is that those that buck the trend, in this case saying man is not the cause of global warming, get called names etc and nobody argues to prove them wrong Greens just say they are wrong and either take the urine out of them or ignore them. If they put up a good argument and explained why these things happened in the past (like how comes after the war when the world was producing so much that CO2 emissions were 30 times higher than today and it got colder)  might perhaps change my opinion. Sadly they don't they just immediately start calling people names etc as I said before. To me this has always been an indication that I am right and they are wrong because they can't argue their point. To much spin I think.

PS I have still yet to discover how advertising boards increase CO2 production.

I wonder if TV read the article that proved Bellamy right about plants? Probably not, make you wonder what else was wrong in Monbiots letters,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the point that we are setting ourselves up for failure: Many of us willingly do our bit on green issues but it seems to me that no matter how much we do, changes we have no control over will mean that we will be told by some it is not enough. In the carrot and stick scenario it will be stick, stick, stick and an issue that can be easily hijacked by governments to raise revenue. 

Lets at least get the part that human beings can play into some sort of context and not keep beating ourselves up about climate changes we are not wholly responsible for. That doesn't mean that we should not change our way of life to respect our planet more though.

As for George Monbiot, last time I saw him he was in short trousers, (an image it is difficult to shake off when I am reading his writing)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Russethouse"]... it seems to me that no matter how much we do, changes we have no

control over will mean that we will be told by some it is not enough... [] Lets at least get the part that human beings can play into some sort of context and not keep beating ourselves up about climate changes we are not wholly responsible for. That doesn't mean that we should not change our way of life to respect our planet more though.[/quote]

My view exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quillan wrote:

"Green Peace has turned in to a multi million dollar industry and has stopped being an activist group and become a political group so it has succumbed to power in the end."

Should this statement be true then I commend it as an example of how the ecologist movement and the market can work together to achieve results. To change anything in society politics has to be engaged with action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see somebody talking some sense. The global warming/cooling phenomenon is basically a natural cycle that has been with the globe since its creation, certainly longer than we have been on it, so to blame it on mankind shows rather a lack of understanding. Of couse, many of the things that man does can contribute to it, and we can lessen the effects of some of these - but not all, because many of the things that contribute to the greenhouse gases that are said to 'cause' global warming are essentials of modern life. The best way we can all help to minimise the effect we have on our environment is to be sensible with our use of energy and avoid waste. About the most dramatic change possible could be made by simple things like switching off all lights in empty rooms and not leaving appliances unneccessarily on standby; that would have a far bigger effect than measures like playing around with vehicle engines and limiting air travel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We got people diving in on global warming for the first time in the thread, we got moderators who are bringing up the topic over and over.  It is a small part of what the thread was meant to be about.  And what environmetnal politics is about.   Furthermore, I have seen nothing that indicates that anyone knows any more about global warming that I do, except it appears that most of you believe the Channel Four documentary rather than most of the scientists on earth.  Which is fine, everyone is sceptical about what they want to be sceptical about.  And it is clear you are not really that interested (or compelled by your understanding of the earth) in changing your lifestyle much, which was what I wanted to learn more about.  Problems, challenges, successes in trying to begin about personal and social changes.  Learning that most peple on this forum want to keep on doing almost exactly what they are doing is not a learning experience for me.  Or learning that nearly none of you have anything to do with politics in your French lives.  I want to know about those that DO something in France.  BUT... can I please ask, since there already have been threads, very recently, on this forum on global warming, can we please just leave it for a bit and concentrate on other important issues.  Just take two minutes and check out the OP.  We people have far more impact on the earth than JUST global warming.  Dioxins, pollution, rubbish, over fishing, deforestation, mad cow, heavy metals, low level radiation, paving over huge areas for raods or parking, the wrong kind of transport systems, the food we "choose" ... there are loads of reasons for us to think about consuming and producing differently, if we wish to make life better on earth instead of worse.

Can we just agree that the jury is out on global warming in terms of the exact percentage we have to do with it.  And agree that if we carry on doing all the things we do the earth is in trouble.  So we can talk about how to maybe lessen our negative impact.  Turning off the lights in a room is a great idea no matter what happens with global warming.  And those standby lights.... But surely we all know that a few individual actions is not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a suggestion for you TV which may give you cause to consider and ameliorate your frustrations with the forum.

If you accept that climate change is caused mostly by the behaviour of man then an effective solution might be restrictions on population growth. Over population of the planet by humans is a major problem. It is in my view a cause which sooner rather than later will need to be dealt with by the world’s politicians. It is odd that this subject is almost totally ignored in the climate change debate by almost everyone. It’s a taboo. I suspect it is not spoken about because of religion and the implications which will inevitably follow any controls or sanctions. It will also address your concerns of over consumption since less people will mean less of almost everything. The growth of capitalism will be halted with a limited workforce and less supply and demand. Employment opportunities would rise as the global job market contracts. Less electricity used, oil consumption would drop and fewer people would fly round the world. Nirvana for the ecologist since the rain forests would be safer. Wild creatures could flourish without the pressure of man consuming their habitat.

Common sense really.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="TreizeVents"]We got people diving in on global warming for the first time in the thread, we got moderators who are bringing up the topic over and over.  It is a small part of what the thread was meant to be about.  And what environmetnal politics is about.   Furthermore, I have seen nothing that indicates that anyone knows any more about global warming that I do, except it appears that most of you believe the Channel Four documentary rather than most of the scientists on earth.  Which is fine, everyone is sceptical about what they want to be sceptical about.  And it is clear you are not really that interested (or compelled by your understanding of the earth) in changing your lifestyle much, which was what I wanted to learn more about.  Problems, challenges, successes in trying to begin about personal and social changes.  Learning that most peple on this forum want to keep on doing almost exactly what they are doing is not a learning experience for me.  Or learning that nearly none of you have anything to do with politics in your French lives.  I want to know about those that DO something in France.  BUT... can I please ask, since there already have been threads, very recently, on this forum on global warming, can we please just leave it for a bit and concentrate on other important issues.  Just take two minutes and check out the OP.  We people have far more impact on the earth than JUST global warming.  Dioxins, pollution, rubbish, over fishing, deforestation, mad cow, heavy metals, low level radiation, paving over huge areas for raods or parking, the wrong kind of transport systems, the food we "choose" ... there are loads of reasons for us to think about consuming and producing differently, if we wish to make life better on earth instead of worse.

Can we just agree that the jury is out on global warming in terms of the exact percentage we have to do with it.  And agree that if we carry on doing all the things we do the earth is in trouble.  So we can talk about how to maybe lessen our negative impact.  Turning off the lights in a room is a great idea no matter what happens with global warming.  And those standby lights.... But surely we all know that a few individual actions is not enough.


[/quote]

I think you need to understand that those of us that are moderators are members first and moderators second. We only become moderators when we have our ‘Hats On’ and cease to become one when we have our ‘Hats Off’ we therefore have the right to post just like any other member.

Unfortunately it was the person you mentioned in your first post that bought up Global Warming. In fact he mentioned it three times before anyone answered him. In fairness he didn’t actually type Global Warming but we all know what he meant.

I do agree that we should leave the subject now in this thread but if you are of the opinion that global warming is helped by emissions and in particular CO2 then in a way it is part of what we are talking about.

As I said I think more should be done to reduce packaging of goods. I agree with others that say we should scrap plastic carrier bags and use paper ones made from recycled paper or paper from sustainable sources.

Lighting - I see the UK government wants to do away with normal bulbs over the coming years and only low energy ones will be available. I think this is not a cleaver way of doing things because people don’t like being forced in to doing things. I would rather have seen homes issued with kits. Let’s say an average home has three bedrooms, kitchen, dinning room, lounge and bathroom so the kit should contain seven low energy bulbs. For those of us with dimmer units then perhaps we should have a 50% discount on a new one when handing our old one in (you need a special dimmer for low energy bulbs and they tend to me quite expensive). The kit could also explain to people how much money they will save on their electricity bill and purchase of old style lamp bulbs over say three years. People like to save money and keep their bills down and I think it would have a greater success.

Rubbish – Pay people to recycle. OK I don’t mean give them physical money but how about giving them a discount of their Tax de Habitation, the more you recycle the less you pay. In our local supermarket (Champion) they still give carrier bags away and what about other shops like cloth shops etc.

Domestic Fuel – I understand you can get a rebate for having a wood burner installed in France, how about the accessories like the ducting to take the heat to other rooms. They may well do this but if not they should (I don’t know because my house came with such a system installed). What about making sawdust in to pellets to burn. The cost is very expensive for one person to do but in regions like my own where you can’t help but ‘fall over’ a saw mill every 5 or 10km it might be worth the government paying for a machine to be installed at each mill or at least subsidise it to start with. I would be very interested in such a scheme because I wanted to do it but as always when trying to do something ‘green’ it cost two, three or four times as much.

Food Production – I can only speak from my areas point of view but it is seasonal food which is different from the UK where you can get anything any time of the year. I wonder how much pollution is involved in flying Haricot beans from Kenya to the UK when there out of season in the UK. Perhaps we should ban the use of chemicals sprayed on food or at least only spray when you need to as opposed to just doing it as a matter of course. Perhaps that would lower the amount of nitrates and other nasty stuff getting in to the water table. Perhaps we should learn to cope with apples that are slightly bruised and the wrong shaped bananas.

Public Transport – Has to be made reliable and cost efficient. When I lived and worked in London which has a good system although not good enough I could get o work quicker and cheaper in my V12 4ltr Grand Cherekee than I could by public transport plus I could sit in comfort and listen to the radio or music I wanted. If public transport was just as quick and cheaper then I would think it mad to use my car and I would be saving myself money. So to get people out of cars and on to public transport in any country you need to make it appealing to the motorists.

Anti Biotic’s – I live in a country now that has an insatiable apatite for the things. Got a cold get an anti Biotic from the doctor. By being more careful with the prescription of drugs people will become more resistant and in effect help the environment by reducing the need to manufacture and we may end up a lot healthier for it in the long run.

The Cost of Green – Every scheme I have looked in to seems to involve money, a great deal of it, more grants should be made available, TVA reduced to zero on such equipment so that the payback time gets shorter. Most people won’t invest unless there is something tangible in it for them like saving money. I know that’s not the way we should look at it but it’s the way most of the population thinks. Environmentalists need to get the public ‘on side’ not beat them with a big stick which is how many of us feel we are being treated at the moment. Don’t tell us how terrible and dark it will be if we don’t do these things, tell us how wonderful and bright our lives will be if we do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rubbish – Pay people to recycle. OK I don’t mean give them physical money but how about giving them a discount of their Tax de Habitation, the more you recycle the less you pay."

Nice idea. However I seem to recall that schemes to record how much rubbish individual households threw away or recycled, measured by fitting microchips to bins, were generally dismissed - including, I seem to remember, on this forum - as another example of the 'big brother' approach that causes people to leave Britain for France. So perhaps there is more of a 'green' feeling among those of us British who have not moved 100% to France.

TV, I don't see why the fact that I had previously only made one post on this topic should make my opinion any less valid. And also the fact that I had not commented on the original topic raised, as I think it is far too early days to kow what the Sarkozy government is actually going to do to liberalise employment law, does not mean that I or other users take no interest in French politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a fascinating thread!

Now quick change of hat to university mode.

Anyone yet read Michael Chrichton's book, "State of  Fear"? Deals with an obviously fictional scenario based on Climate Change and as with all Chrichton's books, copiously researched and authoratative.

The reference sources in the bibliography are worth the price!

Personally, I have yet to be convinced that human activity, in particular, socio-economic activity has much to do with alleged climate change in a macro sense.

Human activity in the past few hundred years has certain small impacts, such as Britain's oak forests being chopped down for building and ships: marcos destroying the Phillipino equitorial rain forests (for hardwood exports) and changing the -local- precipitation and causing earth slip, soil erosion and mudslides

In a similar sense the Romans changed the African part of the Mediterranean Litoral from verdant rural heaven to desert in a few hundred years. They had no agrichemicals, they burnt no oil for heat and energy.

What modern science and, economic growth and intensive manufacturing have done is to poison the atmosphere increasingly. However this is not a climate change issues, it's an air we breathe issue!

Since scientific observation began, man has recorded climate differences: modern science and the development of measurement systems such as Radio Carbon 14 Dating, the electron microscope, then the Photon Microscope and etc, have constantly focused the scientific accuracy and knowledge.

That said, the downside seems to be an increasing propensity for illogical scientific theory, based on emotive passion and media hype! The temptation has become so strong, that we have scientists claiming to have cracked the problem of energy positive nuclear fusion and human cloning!

The academic environment, of course, only rewards post doctoral researchers who have made significant strides in state-of-the-art: which is good, yet dangerous!

Unfortunately, such then allows Governments a whole new raft of opportunities to lie about taxation! Grodon Brown's "Carbon Tax" increase on air travel is an excellent example! It won't actually reduce travel; he has no plans to use the revenue to cut carbon emission, it's simply a new excuse to collect and waste yet more public cash!

Moving on to the old Capitalism .v. Socialism argument (which has hairs on nowadays!), perhaps this debate should now move on to evaluate Stake Holder Theory and Corporate Environmental Impact responsibility.

Quite obviously, socialism, in its Marxist-Driven or Labour perspective is flawed. Unfortunately, so is Capitalism in its current realisation of excess. Many economists and philosophers are presently exploring some compromise: these vary from Libertarianism to an admixture of Collective Centralised Economy and Market Driven, which is probably the right direction.

Worth remembering here, that the father of modern economic John Maynard Keynes, was not only a self-made millionaire, but also a life long socialist and a member of the Fabian Society!

Interesting that Pierre Omidyar (the founder of eBay and a multi-billionaire) has given most of his and his wife Pam's money to a charitable foundation, The Omidyar Network (q.v.Google), which is a sort of network of like minds, exploring and evaluating social, economic and scientific and technological changes and options in the cause of a better World. I have been a member almost since the "off".

Couple of brief points: examine the Laffer Curve of the law of Diminishing Returns, relating to taxation and everything economically dynamic, really.

Doing some research for one of the London Unis, a few years back, I was amazed to discover that France has one of the highest productivity levels in Europe: 35 hour week and all. (Supports CooperLola's point).

Much industrial pyschology research has concluded that past a certain point of work value achieved, output and mental acuity decline and as physical and mental fatique increase, the drop-off rate accelerates.

Sadly, I fear le petit Nicolas, has been seduced by the siren call of the erroneous economic "Law" which postulates that an economy must continually demonstrate year-on-year growth. This is because he is being led more by the elite Far Right wealthy than was Chirac: led by the nez perhaps? 

Some economies desperately need such growth - the USA for example - since they have to support an ever-increasing Current Account and Budgetary Deficit, additional to their core National Debt which is now stratospherically in the mega -trillions! Same with the UK.

As with all dynamic changes in any society and economy, one has to carefully consider the Cost-Benefit relationship. In any case Fiscal Drag means that changes in taxation and economic disciplines take a considerable time to take effect and allow measurable result.

Whilst perhaps M. le President  is an admirer of Thatcher, like her predecessor Heath, aided by Lord Barber to Thatcher's Lawson, the Thatcher "Economic Miracle" was a typical falsely engineered economic boom, closely followed by a bust: Blair's new Labour Model isn't far behind!

There aint nothing for nothing in this spavined old World!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice idea. However I seem to recall that schemes to record how much rubbish individual households threw away or recycled, measured by fitting microchips to bins, were generally dismissed - including, I seem to remember, on this forum - as another example of the 'big brother' approach that causes people to leave Britain for France. So perhaps there is more of a 'green' feeling among those of us British who have not moved 100% to France

The 'chip in bin' plan is gaining ground, but together with possible plans to charge for using the public tip this may increase fly tipping or house fires. I think manufacturers and retailers have to play their part in reducing packaging, preferably before we start penalising the consumer.

Perhaps we should all have a personal energy allowance ?It may be complex to begin with no doubt we could get used it.

Logan - I have heard your 'less population' plan before too, but I was trying to resist posting it!

I have my two children and its too late to send them back, but someone has to pay for our pensions..........[;-)]

___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

PS Some 'fun stuff'  I have two of these bags which are much admired:

http://www.ethicalonestopshop.com/index_files/RecycledExecutiveBag.htm

I have no connection with this company

I have also been recommended to http://www.idealbite.com OK, its American and some of the tips are not applicable but some are.......I'm going to give it a try for a few days......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logan wrote:

If you accept that climate change is caused mostly by the behaviour of man then an effective solution might be restrictions on population growth. Over population of the planet by humans is a major problem.

Tom replied:

I do not and never have accepted that climate change is caused "mostly by people".  I have said that the vast majority of the world's scientists say that is it partly caused by people, and partly a complex climatalogical change process that is as old as the hills, and in each historical case can be partially explained by research that is done already.  Also partly not explained.  Its complex, and like most complex things it is partly unknown.  That's what I say.

I also claim this thread is not about climate change.

I also say that so far I have not seen a single person making coherent arguments from their own scientific knowledge and research, including me.  Comparing arguments and deciding which is more true.  People just quote rogue sites and bad TV programmes, which have already been discussed at length elsewhere on the forum.  Some of you seem to have a strong desire to ignore the (vast) majority view of climate science, perhaps because some of you see all change resulting in higher taxes, which you seem to have a strong dislike for.  You seem to attribute them to bad government, full of theives (which I tend to agree with, although without the dislike of taxes some of you have).  I have also said climate change is a small part of the movements and activities I am talking about, which were around long before global warming was front page material.

As for population growth, I think it is important to make one point.  Its not population growth per se that is a problem, but the consumption patterns of relatively rich people like us.  We are NOT all equal in that regard.  A few more poor people makes no difference at all to the overall growth of consumption since they are poor, therefore don't consume much, nor throw out much, nor drive any kind of car, nor fly in airplanes.  Its the rich that make the problems in the main, not the poor.  And in nearly all the rich countries, population is not growing, but consumption is.  When people get richer, they stop having kids and start consuming stuff.  With the resulting problems.
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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...