GLOBAL WARMING: the truth! (1 Viewer)

[deborah4]

Really?

yep - 'we', 'you' = general not personally directed at anyone

''Your sentence "if you can't be bothered to change your own lifestyle" ...in this I assume it to be 'you in general', likewise is the 'we'.''

and this, a general comment on the difference between procrastination and positive action which was taken out of context

 

[turkish van]

Goodness me! Have you been saving that up?

I wouldn't really disagree with any of that, although b is a bit dodgy.

Of the little I do, more of my effort goes into the stuff you mention in a. - so no, I'm not a carbonite, I know there's a balance, and protection is as important as anything.

 

[Jos Stratford]

I'll add one more...

e. The environment, like it or not, is an economic commodity, even more so in less developed parts of the world. If conservation is to succeed, it needs support in terms of tourist pounds, dollars or euros ...and that means flying. Drive down the numbers flying and some of these schemes will fail. A couple of simple examples - if Bharatpur in India is to see policy change (and it appears it might), it will only because of the direct imortance of tourism. All the African national parks, the finest wildlife areas on the planet, how safe are they without visiting tourists?

Fly and save the planet, cut your carbon footprint and see it screwed beyond repair! And as they screw it, and the animals cry as their home is gone, watch too as the trees get burnt, pumping yet more of that grubby carbon stuff into the air!

 

[Jos Stratford]

b is a bit dodgy.

Okay, a bit dodgy perhaps but overall not bad.

 

[Moonshake]

Where does the impact of road building and airport expansion fit in to your scheme Jos? (in the context of your comment 'I would venture to suggest, in general, those using cars and even flying are probably doing a lot more for the cause of conservation, in all its guises, than those who prefer to sit and procrastinate.')

 

[Jos Stratford]

Where does the impact of road building and airport expansion fit in to your scheme Jos?

Where do many worldwide environmental schemes that rely on tourism for their very survival fit into yours? I'll throw in another example - in the 1980s Black Rhinos almost vanished from the Zambezi Valley due to poaching. There then followed an 'enlightened' period, a series of land owners (til then farming) formed a cooperative and created commercial game parks stretching the almost entire length of the valley, combining with the state national parks. A fact of life, these were created to profit from wealthy tourists, entire ecosytems, not just rhinos, benefited. Tourism collapsed (in this case due to Mugabe, not carbonites) and take a guess what has happened to the valley? If we were to seriously reduce air flight, this single example can be applied outward.

I would prefer no road building and airport expansion either, but if they are needed, then ensure they are done in a manner as least damaging as possible. I would oppose the expansion of Lydd based on what I have heard, I would not on adding the terminal 5 to Heathrow.

My point in this thread is not so much to really praise those choosing to drive or fly, but to at least counter the view that sometimes seems to prevail that the only issue facing the environment is carbon emissions. It is not and if we are going to destroy the world in an attempt to achieve a minor carbon reduction, then my viewpoint is that it is wrong. The E.U. set a mantatory 20% as the amount of power that must be obtained from renewables ...environmental progress or environmental slaughter? Take your pick.

 

[Moonshake]

One of the problems in this sort of argument seems to be that Jos is talking about conservation of species in the short term, whereas Deborah is concerned about the longer term. Obviously, there won't be anything to conserve in the future if we don't doing something now, be it through eco-tourism or twitching or whatever. You do need to try and balance both the demands of the present and of the future though.

 

[Jos Stratford]

One of the problems in this sort of argument seems to be that Jos is talking about conservation of species in the short term, whereas Deborah is concerned about the longer term.

Would agree, though as you point out in your second paragraph, my concern is not the short-term, but also long term. If you destroy something now, it is gone.

There is also another diffference between the two approaches that are sometimes taken. Very often, it appears carbonites see the only goal as saving the planet from predicted global increases in temperature come what may and fail to see a bigger picture. If they are left unchecked, the world will be a sorrier place, full of windfarms slicing and dicing what wildlife is left and, do allow me a little OTT, full is depressed people hating environmentalist do-gooders!

And whilst on the question of road building (earlier question) fitting into my scheme, the massive numbers of extra windfarms needed to achieve the new E.U. targets, how do you imagine they will be constructed and serviced? What is the figure for the kilometres of roads to complement the Skye scheme?

 

[Moonshake]

Mostly agree. I think that the label 'carbonite' sort of oversimplifies um, carbon-conscious environmentalists though, most of whom care about a much greater range of issues than you're giving them credit for. And I don't think that your 'carbonite' strawperson is where Deborah is coming from anyhow. Now, apply the term to power company execs and you might have a point.

 

[Jos Stratford]

And I don't think that your 'carbonite' strawperson is where Deborah is coming from anyhow.

Was not directing comments particulary at her

 

[walwyn]

Couldn't dig up any dirt about sex scandals, but an interesting quote on the RCP here from Wikipedia

The machinations of trotskyite factionalism are a wonder to behold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_Revolutionary_Party_(UK)

 

[gordon g]

Tambora 1815, Katmai 1912, Pinatubu 1991, Kilauea 1983, St. Helens 1980

Just an aside here. Can anyone remember the series a few years ago (on C4 oddly enough) that linked a series of social/political upheavals and a cooling period of about 100yrs in the ?6th century to a large volcanic event (similar to krakatoa etc). My remembered details are rather sketchy, but I do remember the arguments and geological evidence were quite convincing.

 

[deborah4]

... I think that the label 'carbonite' sort of oversimplifies um, carbon-conscious environmentalists though, most of whom care about a much greater range of issues than you're giving them credit for. And I don't think that your 'carbonite' strawperson is where Deborah is coming from anyhow...

Indeed Nick ... in fact the more I listen to and observe the dynamics of the GW debate generally, and the more I hear people justifying their own positions, the more I think Philosophy actually does potentially help decide what we 'ought' to do about it - lots of self-justifying polemic on lifestyles now in the whole environmental debate so I can't be bothered to comment further. Anyway, science/economics/politics/environmentalism haven't provided a concensus for a way forward and no concensus, no inroads when the issues are global! I just try to do what I think I ought to do in a moral sense, which is partly expressed in taking a precautionary approach on a personal level in any contemplative choice of actions which might impinge negatively on the environment long term, or at least might cause the least harm. Then again, all our actions impact on the environment and theres the crux for me! In the absence of knowing empirically what is the best cause of action in every situation, I don't think theres anything else I can realistically do in the long and short term other than what I feel I 'ought' in a moral or ethical sense and I'm sure I'm not alone in that stance.

 

[Capercaillie71]

Just an aside here. Can anyone remember the series a few years ago (on C4 oddly enough) that linked a series of social/political upheavals and a cooling period of about 100yrs in the ?6th century to a large volcanic event (similar to krakatoa etc). My remembered details are rather sketchy, but I do remember the arguments and geological evidence were quite convincing.

That would be the start of the dark ages:

http://www.ees1.lanl.gov/Wohletz/Krakatau.htm

Certainly there are several examples of civilisations that have possibly collapsed due to volcanic activity e.g. the Minoan civilisation after Santorini erupted in 1700BC.

 

[Upland Birder]

Hi all,

Planet Earth will be no more, the solar system will be no more when the sun expands and there will be no more debate on global warming, climate change or any other issue for that matter !!! and no more birding :eek!:

Just dont know when this will happen. Is there anyone out there who has knowledge about this and the development of stars including the sun ?

Dean

Cheadle

 

[Moonshake]

I just try to do what I think I ought to do in a moral sense, which is partly expressed in taking a precautionary approach on a personal level in any contemplative choice of actions which might impinge negatively on the environment long term, or at least might cause the least harm. Then again, all our actions impact on the environment and theres the crux for me! In the absence of knowing empirically what is the best cause of action in every situation, I don't think theres anything else I can realistically do in the long and short term other than what I feel I 'ought' in a moral or ethical sense and I'm sure I'm not alone in that stance.

Deborah, that's pretty much me in a nutshell too. Tread as lightly as possible, be aware that individual actions can have global consequences, try and do the right thing. Putting aside the issue of CO2, that doesn't really contradict what Jos was arguing either though. I can totally see where he's coming from. What happens when the tourists stop coming to see the tigers? Where's your income coming from then? How are you going to feed your family? Why should you bother to maintain a wildlife reserve when that's good farmland you could be ploughing up and planting? Of course there are all sorts of good reasons why chopping down the forest ain't such a hot idea in the longterm, but when it comes to the crunch, you're going to be looking out for you and yours in the here and now.

I can see that 'sitting at home procrastinating' isn't going to solve these sorts of environmental issues, but global warming is only likely to make these problems worse surely. There's obviously a whole range of possible future scenarios depending on the rate and extent of climate change - none of them look like much of a good deal for people or wildlife though, and that's where Jos and I probably part company. I'm not sure I want to play much of a part in the outcomes that science is suggesting.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Hi all,

Planet Earth will be no more, the solar system will be no more when the sun expands and there will be no more debate on global warming, climate change or any other issue for that matter !!! and no more birding :eek!:

Just dont know when this will happen. Is there anyone out there who has knowledge about this and the development of stars including the sun ?

Dean

Cheadle

it's ruoghly 4.5 billion years old and a main sequence star. In roughly that time again it will become a red giant and a lot later, a white dwarf. Larger stars explode into supernovae

we teach this at KS4 at the moment

Tim

 

[dafi]

the program is being repeted in 10 mins on more4 [20.00]so if you didnt see it nows your chance im off to watch it as i didnt see it and have been quite intrested in the whole thread

 

[bitterntwisted]

Hi all,

Planet Earth will be no more, the solar system will be no more when the sun expands and there will be no more debate on global warming, climate change or any other issue for that matter !!! and no more birding :eek!:

Just dont know when this will happen. Is there anyone out there who has knowledge about this and the development of stars including the sun ?

Dean

Cheadle

You can relax on that one, Dean. Not due for 4 or 5 billion years, so not going to affect us or any of the species around at the moment. This timescale is a whole different order of magnitude which is meaningless to human existence - bear in mind that our species has existed only c. 150,000 years, great apes for c. 7 million years etc. To think that anything which even vaguely resembled humans would still be around in 4 billion years would be arrogance of the highest order.

 

[Jos Stratford]

There's obviously a whole range of possible future scenarios depending on the rate and extent of climate change - none of them look like much of a good deal for people or wildlife though.

Environmental change, by its very nature, will have winners and losers. Global warming, regardless of whose predictions you use, is certain to also benefit some species and some areas. And, as for people, I would also guess this much depends of where you live.