GLOBAL WARMING: the truth! (1 Viewer)

[Moonshake]

PERSONAL QUOTAS; I think would be an excellent idea - but I'm not sure if quotas with economic incentives would help in the long term - isn't this the problem with Kyoto? - will trading excess and surplus emission quotas simply make more people use less which I'd find hard to see much more benefit in than less people using more - other than creating a more level ground for social and industrial development between developed and developing Countries?

Not if you set the total global figure at a sustainable level, or set it at the 2007 level and then reduced it year on year until you reached that point.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Incidently some of the best habitat in Europe is going to be destroyed as a result of Via Baltica - regardless of the route it takes however, the need is the same, to provide faster and 'better' road links between the Baltic States and Warsaw but it doesn't matter, because all those using it of course will be doing so to visit wildlife reserves and not for any other reason.

Can't be bothered with the rest of the post, mostly waffle.

But for this bit, back to the reading I suggest Deborah. It will not destroy some of the best habitat regardless of the route taken, that's the whole point - taking the Lomza route it cuts through open fields and does not touch the wildlife habitat. And, as for the need, yes the need does exist - due to the existance of Kalingrad and Belarus, both non-EU, this is the ONLY route linking three E.U. countries with the rest of Europe, ie not to provide better links, but to provide a usable single link. You suggesting all the members in these three nations fly when they need to go to the rest of Europe? Or, just remain at home and let the economy stagnate?

The example of the Via Baltica as a reason for your arguments is laughable - it is however one of the best examples of where intelligent planning should be in place and adhered to.

 

[rozinante]

Turned down your heating yet anybody? Enjoy imported food today? Hypocrites.

1. Yes

2. No

Hypocrite?

Quite possibly, but presuming that any one who is asking for a moderation of our behaviour is not willing, or is not already doing what they can at a personal level is I think totally unjustified.

I learn a lot on this board but I seem to be mostly learning what a terrible person I am. I will soon run out of room on my profile if I keep adding all the new epithets thrown my way.

 

[deborah4]

Can't be bothered with the rest of the post, mostly waffle.

But for this bit, back to the reading I suggest Deborah. It will not destroy some of the best habitat regardless of the route taken,

Why don't you read my post properly - I said the need is the same regardless of the route, not the level of habitat destruction and that 'need' is still car use however you want to look at it.

As for the general tone of your reply .... well nuff said really

 

[deborah4]

1. Yes

2. No

Hypocrite?

Quite possibly, but presuming that any one who is asking for a moderation of our behaviour is not willing, or is not already doing what they can at a personal level is I think totally unjustified.

Quite

 

[turkish van]

Why don't you read my post properly - I said the need is the same regardless of the route, not the level of habitat destruction

"some of the best habitat in Europe is going to be destroyed as a result of Via Baltica - regardless of the route it takes"

Not taking sides, but maybe the wording is a bit off then? I read it the same as Jos...

 

[Moonshake]

Jos wrote:

The example of the Via Baltica as a reason for your arguments is laughable - it is however one of the best examples of where intelligent planning should be in place and adhered to.

I'd be inclined to go along with Jos as the local expert on that particular example, and would agree that we shouldn't deny others the right to develop their economies (but yes, this has to happen within a framework of strong environmental legislation). Huge caveat: not entirely sure where we're going to find the slack in the carbon cycle to accommodate the added inputs though, unless we lucky few in the West are going to cut our emissions right down (and we ain't gonna do that by turning the heating down on planes [if you know what I mean]).

 

[deborah4]

"some of the best habitat in Europe is going to be destroyed as a result of Via Baltica - regardless of the route it takes"

Not taking sides, but maybe the wording is a bit off then? I read it the same as Jos...

nothing wrong with the wording unless of course you only quote part of the whole sentence

'' - regardless of the route it takes however, the need is the same, to provide faster and 'better' road links between the Baltic States and Warsaw ...''


incidently, if someone wants to justify more road building on social and economic grounds, of course they are free to do so, but that's a far cry from justifying car or flight travel on conservation grounds, which is what I understood from the previous argument up until now.

On Social and Economic Grounds?

I made no judgments on that other than pointing out the simple fact the need of Via Baltica was to provide the need for car transport routes - you don't need to be a local expert to understand that'! In fact, in my earlier post, the ''waffle'' part, I did say what one regards as 'necessary' travel is a matter of opinion.

And on a further note if we have now moved on to social and economic justifications how is what I said in my earlier ''waffle'' inconsistent with an improved route for Via B?

all that one can do is minimise rather than cancel out the 'harm' because to cancel out one cause completely could create a domino or collateral negative impact from the other which is what I think you are saying and I agree with.

These collateral negative impacts could also include social and economic ones - in fact, the whole of European Environmental Law operates within and is subordinate to the overall objectives of the Maastrich Treaty as a whole - Economic, Social & Political Union - long term objectives which also acts as a very potent limiting factor in the power of European Environmental legislation to counter/overide economic and social interest within the Community

It doesn't mean to say though, I necessarily agree with placing greater personal emphasis on one over the other - in fact, on a personal level, my priorities are probably more environmental in perspective than social, economic or political

 

[colonelboris]

I'm going to go out on a limb. The reason why we're using so many resources is because there are so many of us. If we could create a negative birth rate globally, we'd be decreasing the need for fuel, transport and emiisions of CO2 and any other gunk we're making. There's so many initiatives and drives for tiny, insignificant measures that can sometimes greatly inconvienence a lot of people, yet no-one ever really wants to tackle the root of the problem.
The last time I mentioned this, I got some answer along the lines of 'who are you to decide who's born and who's not and what about their human rights?', as if I was advocating forced abortions or something. We've made it easier for children to survive and for people to live longer, so now the population's increasing. In time, unless something drastic is invented, the number of people will outstrip food supply. In fact, in some areas of the world, one bad harvest can cause this sort of thing. Imagine what would happen if the whole of China had one really bad harvest?
I think that in the future if we want to avoid overuse of resources (and the resultant environmental problems), famines and possible wars over resources, then lowering the birthrates of some of the bigger developing nations is important.

 

[rozinante]

I think that in the future if we want to avoid overuse of resources (and the resultant environmental problems), famines and possible wars over resources, then lowering the birthrates of some of the bigger developing nations is important.

Surely this lowering of the birthrates would of neccesity be required to gradualy increase to maintain a ballance as the overuse (not to mention abuse) of resources in the alredy "developed" world continues to rise. Taken to its logical consequence, I wonder which population would be next to require reduction when eventualy, in this hypothetical world, the bigger developing nations were reduced to zero.

 

[Moonshake]

I think that in the future if we want to avoid overuse of resources (and the resultant environmental problems), famines and possible wars over resources, then lowering the birthrates of some of the bigger developing nations is important.

Surely if anyone's overusing resources, it's the developed countries. Who uses more oil/food/water etc - someone in the US or someone in India?

 

[deborah4]

I think that in the future if we want to avoid overuse of resources (and the resultant environmental problems), famines and possible wars over resources, then lowering the birthrates of some of the bigger developing nations is important.

Why just developing nations? Incidently, I think you're right re: population levels which is why I made a conscious decision years ago not to have children but rather adopt if the personal desire for family arises! (which it hasn't so far )

As was said earlier, it's unjustifiable to advocate moderation of behaviour one is not willing to adopt oneself - all about making a personal contribution at the end of the day

 

[colonelboris]

I think part of it is that in, say, China, you've got a rapidly expanding population, but also an increasingly affluent one, so the effect is two-fold. People who have more maney than their parents will look at people here with our disposable resources culture and think 'I want that'. Equally, we should be changing how we view our resource use, but also concentrate on keeping a stable, or decreasing population.
That's a point I should have added to the first post.
Thing is, even thirty years ago things were not disposable as they are now. peopl used to get their shoes and TVs repaired or mended instead of throwing them away to get new ones. It's not as if we couldn't take more care of the items we own. That, too would help.

 

[Moonshake]

As was said earlier, it's unjustifiable to advocate moderation of behaviour one is not willing to adopt oneself - all about making a personal contribution at the end of the day

Step forward Al Gore...

 

[colonelboris]

Why just developing nations? Incidently, I think you're right re: population levels which is why I made a conscious decision years ago not to have children but rather adopt if the personal desire for family arises! (which it hasn't so far )

As was said earlier, it's unjustifiable to advocate moderation of behaviour one is not willing to adopt oneself - all about making a personal contribution at the end of the day

The general trend in the developed nations is towards a very slowly increasing or decreasing population.
China has a 0.59%/year increase and the UK has 0.28%/year. The UK percantage is equivalent to 169,000 people per year. Bearing in mind that net immigration is estimated at 200,000 (500,000 in, 300,000 out). China is increasing by 7.75 million people per year (or by the entire population of Switzerland and a bit).
The figures for the whole EU are:

Population growth rate:
0.15% (2006 est.)
Birth rate:
10 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Death rate:
10.1 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)
Net migration rate:
1.5 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2006 est.)

The sort of rate of population increase seen in China (and I'm not singling China out, just using it as an example) isn't sustainable over a few centuries. India is growing at 15.1 million people per year (the equivalent of a whole two Switzerlands).
Whatever your viewpoint, we're going to get very crowded in the next few centuries. Given our inability to embrace any really significant methods to decrease our resource use and emmissions output, what chance does the world have if we're going to keep going up in numbers?

 

[Tyke]

Why just developing nations?

Mainly developing nations for sure-because that is where the growth will be:-

2003
North America 326m
Europe 726
Asia 3823
Africa 851
Others 575
____
6301 m

2050
North America 448m (+122)
Europe 632 ( -94)
Asia 5222 ( +1399)
Africa 1803 (+952)
Others 814 ( +239)
_____
8919 m ( +2618)

By 2050 the world will be dominated economically, demographically (and if they so choose militarily) by India & China the two most populous nations on earth: the largest Democracy & the largest Single Party State.


Colin

 

[deborah4]

Given our inability to embrace any really significant methods to decrease our resource use and emmissions output, what chance does the world have if we're going to keep going up in numbers?

You can spout all the figures you like at me! But advocating population controls on developing countries alone, is not you ''embracing any really significant methods to decrease our resource use'' but advocating someone else should!

(btw Do you have children?)

I'm only interested in what I should be doing and what responsibility I take for environmental impact - at the risk of sounding like an old record, everything is hyperbole to me unless impressive and 'scientifically' justifiable arguments are
also backed up by personal commitment to the changes I think need to be made in my own lifestyle - I'm afraid this extends to world 'population' figures

 

[colonelboris]

Spouting figures is all the rage. Have a look at some of the global warming predictions.
I've got one baby. And we're moving to a country with one of the higher negative birthrates in Europe. And we don't drive, buy organic food (think of all the extra milage it causes) or fly very often at all.
Why not aim such a proposal at developing nations? They have little enough resources for the populations they have already, let alone increasing ones. As I stated with the above spouted numbers, most of the developed world already has a negative birth rate.

 

[colonelboris]

After closer inspction,the part of my post about the 'higher negative birthrate' in the country we're moving to appears to be wrong.

 

[deborah4]

Why not aim such a proposal at developing nations? They have little enough resources for the populations they have already, let alone increasing ones.

and the economic, political, and material demands to sustain our lifestyles in the West aren't partly responsible for the lack of resources in developing nations?

I still think 'What can I do?' and all I can realistically come up with is that which is in my personal power to acheive - maybe very little on the macro scheme of things but gives me a sense of power absolutely to change the world I live in for something a little better! RE. Population - yes, the world is vastly over populated if our own lifestyles are even to be maintained and let alone those of developing countries are to improve - So my first and foremost duty is not to add to that problem by contributing more little uns!!!