- This topic has 417 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A timely announcement with COP26 just around the corner – Sunak has just announced that internal flights in the UK are to have the tax reduced to half! This will “reduce the cost of living”, for – ehem – the hard working British taxpayer. Tax for diesel on buses and trains remains unaltered, at least from the bit I heard.
Environmentalists, rejoice! We’ve finally got a government getting to grips with the transport problems (sorry, “challenges”) in this country.
Michael – “But the three main things are to stop the increase in human numbers…”
I linked some videos about that; did you watch them? You seem not to have taken them into consideration.
Clark, I have been outdoors, all day.
No, I have not watched any videos.
I certainly do not watch everything as I would begin to unravel as a person.
I have my own views. I will be sticking to my own views. A few years ago I went to Scotland as one of my aunts was having a one hundredth birthday party, Andy Murray’s mum and grandmother turned up, it was a good day.
When my aunt was born there were about two billion people in the World.
Today it is more like eight billion. So, in a little over one hundred years, our World has to support four times as many people but it is much more involved than that.
Many of these new borns want to fly, consuming aviation fuel at no tax.
Many of these new borns will have Chinese electrical goods, which all use plastics made of oil, the Chinese use Coal to make electricity. People cut Tropical rainforest down to grow C4 plants. C4 plants take in very much less Carbon dioxide than is taken in by a Climatic Tropical Rain Forest.Sorry, I meant to type “climactic Tropical Rain Forest”.
A climactic forest, is an old forest that is at or near to its most biodiverse.No forest can stay at this point for too long, environmental catastrophe will happen, be it volcanic eruption, tidal inundation, earthquake, liquifaction, fire or other event/events.
“I have my own views. I will be sticking to my own views.”
That has been very clear from your posts. I am going to say this again: that is downright rude. Why do you think we should care to read the links you post but you will not return the same courtesy? Is it perhaps in case you might realise that your views are wrong. Seriously, why do you bother to post here or anywhere else if you refuse to consider other information? With all due respect MN, that attitude is what’s wrong in the world. You don’t get to have a view that is not backed up by factual data.
ET
what I do not want, is to become part of a group think global warming glue myself to the road idiocy.
If we are not to discuss anything other than in a group think way, then that is sad. We do not all think the same, that is because, we are individuals not part of the Borg.
Up till thirty five million years ago, there were no ice caps.
At that time no people were burning Carbon. Yes, I might be just starting to come around to the notion of human induced burning of Oil/Coal/Natural gas is very slightly upticking temperatures. Do I think the end of the World will happen because of burning fossil fuels, no I do not. What I do think is ghastly is the removal of primeval forests. This mostly happens because the number of humans on the Earth is substantially more than ever before. The slight increase in temperature will, in my personal view, be more to do with human interventions of land use.
The clearing of forests to grow C4 plants. The clearing of forests to grow beef. Billions more, wanting ever more stuff.
If the increase in human population is not understood to be the main driver of biodiversity implosion, then nothing will change. So me burning some Natural Gas to keep warm in a Northern Latitude will make little difference to the outcome. I will not be going to Glasgow for COP26. I will not be glued to the road. I will not stop eating fish or meat. But I do not buy much plastic stuff, I do not consume fashion, I hardly ever go abroad. I live a very modest lifestyle, because I choose that, not because I am instructed how to think. I will not be instructed how to think, if I allowed myself to be instructed how to think, I would not be me.“Up till thirty five million years ago, there were no ice caps.”
Which would have been bad news for you and I MN. At that point in time most of Ireland and southern Britain were under sea water as were huge chunks of the european continent and most of the west of the Indian (sub)continent. This is the best “map” I could find for now. Whether man made or not if all that ice melts where you live and where I live will be under sea and there would be enormous upheaval across the world.
That climate was different or CO2 levels higher in the past doesn’t counter an argument that human activities are pumping huge amounts of CO2 and other shit into the atmosphere on top of what would have happened anyway without us.
“what I do not want, is to become part of a group think…..”
Most of the links you post are from the BBC or the Daily Mail, perhaps you already are part of the group think? For some reason MN, you were drawn to this particular blog of Craig Murray’s. Why was that? On numerous occasional CM has pointed to the blatant propogandising from BBC and other MSM some of which you stated you recognised. Why do you implicitly trust them at other times?
“If we are not to discuss anything other than in a group think way, then that is sad. We do not all think the same, that is because, we are individuals not part of the Borg.”
Regardless of how we think MN, we should all draw the same logical conclusions from the data. For sure, the logic path can be contested and the data questioned as to its accuracy, completeness, applicability etc etc but once all that is figured out there should be only one logical conclusion. How one thinks or one’s views don’t or shouldn’t play a part.
ET “How one thinks or one’s views don’t or shouldn’t play a part.”
In that case why bother to invent democracy?
It has zero to do with democracy or any other political mechanism. And you know that. Climate change is or isn’t happening which can be determined by data analysis. In a democracy or dictatorship the answer will be the same as long as we have the relevant data. Whether we have all the relevant data is a different question.
Should we conduct a poll on whether the earth is flat or spherical? In my view MN if you think the Earth is flat (I’m not implying that you, MN, do) you shouldn’t be allowed to vote in anything – but that is my inner dictator coming out.
Please consider the context I gave to that statement MN. “we should all draw the same logical conclusions from the data….How one thinks or one’s views don’t or shouldn’t play a part.” I mean ‘logical’ in its strictest sense ie. there is no other non-false conclusion that can be drawn from facts.
M N
That is why democracy is not working properly. People make irrational misinformed decisions about stuff that is beyond their understanding. To be brutal, many voters are literally idiots and yet their votes count as much as the ones from highly intelligent people from the opposite side of the Bell curve. No wonder simple idiotic slogans work!
There is a video talking about neuroscientific Analysis of Conservative v Liberal brain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI-un8rHP14
I believe ET and Clark are Liberal and M N is Conservative type of brain. It is one of the most revealing analyses explaining ET and MN points.
“If the increase in human population is not understood to be the main driver of biodiversity implosion, then nothing will change.” MN October 28, 2021 at 07:16
Just because some consider the World Human Population Growth is easing, that does not take away that since about 1900, the population of the World has about quadrupled. This in essence is the problem. All other bio matters evolve from this rapid increase of population.
Michael, Extinction Rebellion’s Principle One:
https://rebellion.global/about-us/
– We have a shared vision of change;
– To make a world fit for generations to come.I’m pretty sure you support this principle. Humanity is making a world that is unfit for generations to come, and we, the people currently alive, have a moral duty to change that, because natural things now rapidly being destroyed took millions of years to come into existence. Humanity is destroying nature thousands of times faster than it can regenerate itself and only us in the present can change it. The faster we act, the less will be lost.
In your October 27, 18:59 comment you wrote:
– “Many of these new borns want to fly, consuming aviation fuel at no tax. Many of these new borns will have Chinese electrical goods, which all use plastics made of oil, the Chinese use Coal to make electricity. People cut Tropical rainforest down to grow C4 plants.”
The reason “People cut Tropical rainforest down to grow C4 plants” is because they’re paid to; it’s profitable. That’s also why people run airlines, make electrical products and extract oil; these things wouldn’t be available for wrecking the world unless people were being paid to do them. Under the current system, people need to do these things on order to get money to live – so there is some authority higher than people, some form of control, and it is money. The people can’t change unless and until the system of money is changed.
Changing that system is what Extinction Rebellion is all about. In order to change it, we need enough people who are willing to take some kind of action against it. Precisely what actions they take are up to them; Principle 10:
– We are based on autonomy and decentralisation
– We collectively create the structures we need to challenge power.XR members are only gluing themselves to roads because it was an idea someone had and it proved to work – it forces governments to take notice, and it gets reported, making people think. But XR do a lot of other things too, and anyone can come up with an idea and develop it within XR groups, or join in with some other members’ ideas.
– – – – – – – –Michael, there’s a big difference between what we think, and how we think. It’s related to the difference between fact and opinion. Everyone should agree that toxic pollution makes people ill and can kill them. It’s just a fact, and we don’t abandon our personality by accepting it. A socialist may argue that nationalisation of industry is the way to stop toxic pollution, whereas a capitalist is likely to argue that strong laws will make industry clean up its act. An extreme libertarian might insist that eventually people will become aware of which companies are dumping toxins, boycott them and thereby drive them out of business – pure market dynamics. These are differences of opinion, but only liars would distort the public’s understanding of toxicity to trick us into supporting their preferred solutions, or thinking that there was no problem at all. Unforgivably, the system of money also pays people to craft very convincing lies. That’s why Extinction Rebellion’s First Demand is:
– Tell the Truth! about the climate and ecological emergency.
You already agree that there’s an ecological emergency, and in this your thinking is already ahead of the media, who go on and on about climate and hardly ever mention the ongoing mass extinction caused by human activity. If we had time, I’m sure I could convince you that there is also a climate emergency, by consideration of observable facts – you did write that you’re open to being convinced. But right now I should go out and help with talking to the public and giving out leaflets.
Germany
“We cannot jump out of nuclear and stop being active in coal, and then wonder why energy prices are going up, Mangold told RT on the sidelines of the 14th Eurasian Economic Forum in Verona, Italy. I believe that nuclear will be important for the future in Europe.”
https://www.rt.com/business/538732-germany-nuclear-russia-gas/Perhaps Europe is trying to de-carbonising too fast?
Germans like burning coal and wood. They like Natural Gas but they do not like Nuclear Reactors, they do not trust them.
Part of the not trusting Nuclear Reactors maybe be because of having to be dependent on the French?
The French are threatening England with reducing the flow of electricity from the French Nuclear Reactors or of jacking up the price.
If Germany allowed Germany to be over reliant on French Nuclear Reactors, who is to say the French would not try and leverage?
You can’t run an massive economy with out massive energy.I expect Clark is right. The nub will be convincing German voters that they should not want more stuff.
If all reasonably well off people refused to fly to other countries. If they kept the same cooker for twenty years. If they kept the same cycle for twenty years. If the demanded that their food was not coated in plastic. If they stopped keeping cats and dogs. If they stopped buying stuff from Asia but instead made stuff at home, so the item only travelled a few miles from the manufacturer to the buyer. If people mended stuff we it broke, rather than just buy new from Asia.
A lot of ifs. Clack is correct that ecological collapse is happening, now. What we seem to be not agreeing on is the cause. I doubt all ecological collapse is just because of burning fossil fuels. That is a part of the problem but it is not the nub of the problem. The nub of the problem in the increase in human numbers and the destruction of habitat that then ensues. Just concentrating on fossil fuels is doing us a disservice, it is missing the main target.C4 plants utilise much less Carbon dioxide than other, older plants. C4 plants came into existence about the same time as Antarctica began to ice over. C4 plants came into existence because free Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere had reached the lowest ever level, since Earth first gained an atmosphere. Many of the plant based foods that humans have come to rely on, are C4 plants.
Clearing the forests.
Forests hold huge amounts of water. Forests transpire causing it to rain. Forests hold the ecosystem together. Forests retain the soil. In the first instance, often the most prolific crops can be grown by removing the forest. The soil is deep and fertile, it is alive with microorganisms, it is essentially those microorganisms that aid the flourishing of the forests.
One the forest is removed, everything goes quickly downhill.
It rains less. When it does rain, it is often more intense and washes the soil away. The microorganisms die out, the fertility of the soil dies out. Winds are more problematic, blowing away the dry soil. Fertilizers have to be used and irrigation employed, rather than the Earth managing itself, man is managing the Earth.
The more men there are, the more managing that is required.
All this plays out, even without using fossil fuels.Pidgeon, I watched that video and it concurs with a similar finding that personality traits can similarly predict political leanings. What I don’t like is that the American interpretation of the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are used and conflated with a political affiliation. I don’t think that is as applicable in a European/UK (possibly anywhere outside of USA) context.
In USA any idea of “free at the point of service” health care is seen as reds-under-the-bed communism by the conservative group yet in the UK, for instance, the NHS would have broad support from almost everyone regardless of how they vote. Public transport investment would similarly have broad support in the UK and Europe but not so much in USA.
I believe we have to find an alternative to the left/right politics and realise that in some instances it is more benificial to be conservative in its truest sense and in others it is better to take a socialistic stance. We must all be open to new data or refined data on any subject. One’s views must be open to being updated and adjusted accordingly.
I don’t know if you know of Jordan Peterson, a Canadian clinical psychologist and professor, who came to light for his opposition to gender language laws in Canada. He has a series of lectures on Personality and Its Transformations which although lengthy might interest you.
ET
I agree with you on American perspective.
My Wife likes JP but I am not big fan. He was supposed to have a discussion about socialism with a real lefty professor of Economics Richard Wolff but to big disappointment JP pulls out.
I am still fascinated by conclusion that presenting facts and data on some people do not work and likewise playing feelings and emotion will not convince others.
You say “We must all be open to new data or refined data on any subject”. To my frustration with “Conservative” mind this approach is most likely to fail.?
Michael, 12:37
* – “I doubt all ecological collapse is just because of burning fossil fuels.”
You’re right; far from it.
* – “Just concentrating on fossil fuels is doing us a disservice, it is missing the main target”
It’s not Extinction Rebellion concentrating on fossil fuels; XR have been clear from our outset; it’s a climate and ecological crisis. But I know that the corporate media represent XR as “climate change campaigners”. They would help everyone if they’d learn to listen better.
But climate change is the most urgent because greenhouse gases work like a blanket or a coat; you don’t immediately get warm when you put it on. You get warmer and warmer the longer you wear it, until your temperature reaches its new equilibrium. But unlike a coat you can’t just take the emissions out again if you get too hot. Like putting sugar in your tea emissions take moments to put in, but it takes nature decades to take them out.
The greenhouse gases that human activities are releasing right now will remain in the atmosphere for decades, and they’ll be trapping extra heat for all those years, so the temperature will climb and climb. That’s why we need to curtail emissions now; the longer we delay the higher the temperature will peak at, decades in the future.
Then there’s ocean acidification. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gets dissolved in water slightly, becoming carbonic acid. In the oceans this neutralises some of the alkalis, decreasing the alkalinity. In places, this is damaging the base of the food chain. If it goes too far it will be catastrophic.
* – “If all reasonably well off people refused to fly to other countries. If they kept the same cooker for twenty years. If they kept the same cycle for twenty years. If the demanded that their food was not coated in plastic. If they stopped keeping cats and dogs. If they stopped buying stuff from Asia but instead made stuff at home, so the item only travelled a few miles from the manufacturer to the buyer. If people mended stuff we it broke, rather than just buy new from Asia.”
But michael, regulating things is what governments are supposed to do. You can’t just buy cruise missiles or uranium; such things are regulated by governments. Drivers can’t just park anywhere they want to, because it would cause too many problems. Even using sexist or racist language has laws against it, because of the hateful attitudes they normalise and spread.
Air miles could be rationed, for instance. Work out how many total air miles per year are sustainable, and evenly distribute tokens for them throughout the entire world population. Poorer people and people who don’t want to fly could sell them, bring in some money from the rich parts of the world. Emissions themselves could be rationed, tokenised and distributed in this way.
These are just my ideas, it isn’t up to me but my point is twofold: (1) It is not beyond the wit of man to find ways to regulate things, but (2) it must be governments that do so.
But governments and media have been putting a certain idea in our heads for decades, that “saving the planet” (dumb soundbite) is purely down to individual choices. Well, whether we may possess slaves or not is no longer a personal choice; governments made laws against that. How much noise we make, how our house discharges its sewage, and how we behave in public are all regulated. Things are discouraged through tax, eg. tobacco and fuel duty, and things are encouraged with subsidies or public supply, eg. medicines.
Governments depict environmental concerns as individual responsibilities to avoid making rules that people wouldn’t like and thus losing the next election. But the children and grandchildren looking back from our future will see it very differently – as a massive abdication of responsibility, criminally negligent.
Clark
less extreme example but equally good is child labour.
Market Fundamentalism (Economics) tell us as long there are people willing
to employ children and children willing to work it should not be a problem.Basic law in Economics of supply and demand and yet no one is advocating going back to those times in civilized world (yet). Not sure about JRM opinion on that.Of course countries doing that have Competitive advantage and world cooperation and rules are needed.
Things you mention should be part of Political Economy and would be much more difficult to put reactionary opinions as Economics Gospel. As I mentioned in one of mine previous post “Chicago boys” and followers do not like term Political Economy.Economics is Science not to be influenced by politics. I believe they succeed to make people believe that politics can not influence Economics and Politics should stay out of “Free Market Economy”
As an Atheist I can’t believe I am writing this(don’t tell my family and friends they would die from ?)
Jesus did not have many followers in the beginning and his efforts were doomed and futile!
In the Bible it apparently states “Go Forth and Multiple”
well, in a few thousand years, there has been a lot of multiplying.
Aridification
A climactic forest holds a huge amount of biodiversity, it holds a huge amount of water, it holds the topsoil in place, it reduces wind, it levels out temperature differences, it is the keystone of ecological sustainability on land.
If you remove that keystone bad things happen.
Apparently, agriculture started in the Middle East about twelve thousand years ago. Cut down trees to sew cereal. Invent irrigation. Increase human population. Become reliant of cereal. Invent civilization. Invent weapons (you now have something to protect or conversely, steal). Invent armies and war, enslave others. Desire more stuff.
And, so on.Quote – the 19th Eurasian Economic Forum
“On the sidelines of the 19th Eurasian Economic Forum, which was held in Verona, Italy, it was also noted that European countries are very interested in ensuring that logistics corridors through Eurasia are as efficient as possible. However, after the pandemic, it is necessary not to just increase production and restore logistics, the forum participants are sure. The corona crisis showed that it is necessary to reorient the economy to reduce consumption.”
That the first time I have ever heard that view.
It is key.
“The corona crisis showed it is necessary to reorient the economy to reduce consumption”
We have to learn to desire less.
We should not be always aiming for growth. Some growth, in renewables and the reforestation of the Earth but personal consumption of tat should be minimalised.Michael, it’s overshoot. People were at the mercy of nature, food stocks didn’t last through winter, in some places water supply wasn’t secure, basic medicine wasn’t understood, people had six or eight children so that two would survive to have children themselves. It is natural for people to want more under such circumstances.
Only a minority live like that now, but people keep wanting more for a number of reasons. Societies get into habits; striving for more has served humanity well, but now much of humanity has overshot. The system of trade was founded on exchange for mutual advantage, and that worked well, but as it ran out of demand for necessities it turned increasingly to satisfying desires and then, as those desires were satisfied it turned to stimulating desires to boost demand. So now we have advertising, marketing, and social status that is awarded according to affluence. Then there’s inequality. When people see others with vastly more than themselves, it is natural for some of them to want as much. And the media ensures that we see the mega-rich and their lifestyles day in, day out; this sets up the targets that the advertising aims for.
Technology has changed things stunningly fast; just the changes in my lifetime are overwhelming, I live in a different world from the one I grew up in, and such rapid change and lack of stability is not normal in human history. And it takes time for societies to adapt. It takes time, and awareness of the need to change; someone has to point out the dangers, the losses, and the alternatives.
And then it takes time to change politics, and this is all time we do not have. People are good at reacting to threats that arrive suddenly, but ecological degradation is cumulative, it often takes time to be recognised, and although lightning fast on the geological timescale it is slow compared with human life spans. It is creeping up on us and our governments aren’t reacting fast enough.
Michael – “We have to learn to desire less.”
And we can learn to share more. Maybe we don’t need one of everything each, to use until its planned obsolescence expires, dispose of it and buy a new one. It moves money about and makes profit, but it’s bad for our world. Maybe we can pool our resources, and share our skills. Maybe more community workshops would help, where people teach each other how to fix things and swap useful junk. Maybe we should have community kitchens, where people cook for each other and teach each other their best recipes.
But town centres have been taken over by retail, which seems to be the only activity that can afford town centre business rates. Even necessities like grocery and hardware are being pushed out out to the peripheries, where people need a car to access them. Phones, fashion, finance, betting, pubs, clubs and restaurants are all you’ll find in the high street these days – luxuries and money.
Pigeon English – “Jesus did not have many followers in the beginning and his efforts were doomed and futile!”
Oh I dunno; everyone’s knows of him a couple of millennia later. Gave up owning things, went out teaching generosity, tolerance and love while exposing hypocrisy in the power structure, propaganda was arranged and he got tortured to death. The message gets obscured but the people don’t forget; everyone knows he was right.
