If the UK government said OK, we in this country need to set an example, from now on to cut down on emissions all private air travel will be by permit only. In order to travel by air citizens will need to apply online or in writing to justify their travel. Approval is at the discretion of the government and all decisions are final.
Would that be acceptable?
Business' could apply for a travel permit to allow a certain number of air miles per year.
Originally posted by Mubbers: To your question think of this:
If the UK government said OK, we in this country need to set an example, from now on to cut down on emissions all private air travel will be by permit only. In order to travel by air citizens will need to apply online or in writing to justify their travel. Approval is at the discretion of the government and all decisions are final.
Would that be acceptable?
Business' could apply for a travel permit to allow a certain number of air miles per year.
Enjoy the future!
No - to quote James Lovelock we need a "soft landing" from where we are. Just as taking a heroin addict off the stuff too quickly can be worse than the addiction so we need to start to wean ourselves off our present (economic) course (which leaves so call first world societies increasingly remote from the environment that sustains them) over a period of time.
We've created this mess in a relatively short period of time, it will take a relatively short period of time (50 - 150 years??) to fix it if we have the intelligence to do so.
I'm not holding my breath given the views of some on this forum !!
Originally posted by Seskinreay: We've created this mess in a relatively short period of time, it will take a relatively short period of time (50 - 150 years??) to fix it if we have the intelligence to do so.
I'm not holding my breath given the views of some on this forum !!
I'll start thinking about doing my bit when I see some of the greenies doing theirs. Funny how the sacrifices always have to be made by somebody worse off than themselves. One of my neighbours is an ardent FoE-er; he's just driven off to his second home in France. Never seen him out cycling - when I'm out on my bike (I like the exercise) he's almost had me off quite regularly.
Originally posted by Seskinreay: We've created this mess in a relatively short period of time, it will take a relatively short period of time (50 - 150 years??) to fix it if we have the intelligence to do so.
I'm not holding my breath given the views of some on this forum !!
I'll start thinking about doing my bit when I see some of the greenies doing theirs. Funny how the sacrifices always have to be made by somebody worse off than themselves. One of my neighbours is an ardent FoE-er; he's just driven off to his second home in France. Never seen him out cycling - when I'm out on my bike (I like the exercise) he's almost had me off quite regularly.
Such a small minded child like attitude! Be a man of vision and lead the way !! Not a hope in hell - you prove my point !!!
In order to come anywhere near finding an answer to this question - that is, if a green life is worth living or not? - it's necessary to wonder what 'green' actually means and whose life the asker of the question has in mind that he (or she) is wondering about being lived?
A person whose life didn't necessarily feel worth living might believe quite strongly that it could ONLY become so on the condition of other people's lives being made 'green'... in other words: "my life is worth living MORE only if other people's lives are lived less." If so, we can modify the question to make it more accurate - "Will making other people's lives green make mine more worth living?"
And when we look up 'green' in the Oxford English Dictionary, it throws some interesting light on the question and its possible formation.
One definition of 'green' is 'inexperienced or naive'. Another is 'very envious' - with 'envy' defined as 'resentful longing aroused by another's possessions, quality or luck / to regard maliciously'.
So, the 'green' question could be elaborated in two directions: 'Is a life made inexperienced and naive (ie undeveloped) worth living?'
'Is a life filled with a resentful and malicious longing aroused by another's possessions and qualities worth living?'
And, curiously enough, the two modified questions appear to be inter-linked and highly relevant to the subject! The asker may be wondering if his life would become worth living if he could get rid of his consuming envy - by getting rid of development and the success of others... AND if the resulting universal human naivety he wishes to replace it with, will give him the life he wishes to live (or if all of this is an unrealistic wish?)
An clear answer is available to a question which includes all of the above definitions of 'green' and can therefore be reformulated as: 'Is a life spent attempting to control other people (to submit to my naive fantasies) a life even lived?'
Originally posted by Roger58: 'Is a green life worth living?'
Rog, put your amateur psychology book down (which you don't appear to understand anyway) and look at the reality of current temperatures and forest fires in Italy, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece that have so far killed 80 plus people. Things are looking bright there all right, but I don't think many (pejoratively termed) "Greenies" will be looking on with envy.
Ask yourself also why the insurance companies are planning for further more frequent extreme weather events as described by the ABI spokesman on BBC Breakfast TV this morning. Do they do this for fun - I don't think so!
I suggest you join JL and continue to follow that voice of reason "Lost in Kate Winslet" (a fantastist surely). Of course its not the voice of reason, just the message you want to hear because reality frightens you possibly?
You still clinging to your vision of, what was it, 12-13 billion people on this planet and still flourishing?
Originally posted by Seskinreay: Such a small minded child like attitude! Be a man of vision and lead the way !! Not a hope in hell - you prove my point !!!
Seskinreay
I do not expect others to do it all for me. What I do expect is that those who argue that AGW does exist and who are better off than me should not expect me to lead where they seem unwilling to go. It’s fine for them to drive down to their second home in France, but woe betide me for wanting to fly to my favourite city (New York). It’s just another means of the middle classes wanting to deny others the fruits they have already garnered for themselves.
It’s just another means of the middle classes wanting to deny others the fruits they have already garnered for themselves.
Can someone please explain to me why AGW deniers feel that this is some sort of class war?
I do not know whether others share my perspective on it. In my case it is very simple:
AGW was never an issue when the rich nations were industrialising. It is only when third world countries start to develop that it suddenly becomes crucial.
AGW was never an issue when the middle classes were jetting off to the Maldives or the Seychelles. It is only when those less well off can get cheap flights that it suddenly becomes crucial.
And is the solution ever that the rich become less well off? No, it is always that the less well off have to forego the pleasures that those better off have already purloined.
It’s just another means of the middle classes wanting to deny others the fruits they have already garnered for themselves.
Can someone please explain to me why AGW deniers feel that this is some sort of class war?
Not all "deniers" as far as I can see, but it seems to be a major part of the conspiracy theory element of AGW "denial". It is certainly one of Durkin's favourite themes.
Originally posted by Roger58: 'Is a green life worth living?'
Rog, put your amateur psychology book down (which you don't appear to understand anyway) and look at the reality of current temperatures and forest fires in Italy, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece that have so far killed 80 plus people. Things are looking bright there all right, but I don't think many (pejoratively termed) "Greenies" will be looking on with envy.
Ask yourself also why the insurance companies are planning for further more frequent extreme weather events as described by the ABI spokesman on BBC Breakfast TV this morning. Do they do this for fun - I don't think so!
I suggest you join JL and continue to follow that voice of reason "Lost in Kate Winslet" (a fantastist surely). Of course its not the voice of reason, just the message you want to hear because reality frightens you possibly?
You still clinging to your vision of, what was it, 12-13 billion people on this planet and still flourishing?
If you wish to criticise me for the effort I take to think about AGW and fit it into a broader framework that's your right. But at least TRY to engage in a bit of research and reflection yourself around the examples you post here as proof of the Armageddon you're convinced of. If you don't do this you are at risk of being seen as the person having all the faults you're so quick to accuse others of having (and in my amateur psychology book, I think that's called 'projection').
Whatever side of the AGW fence you decide to stand on is your choice, but your position will be greatly enhanced if you can manage to show you have arrived at that choice by bothering to look beyond the superficial rather than just clinging on to James Lovelock's coat-tails.
For example, it took me just 2 minutes of Googling to discover that Southern Europe has always had a forest fire season, that in many ways it's environmentally beneficial, that any increase in fires over the past few decades is down to the large increase in tourism, and that the land-area exposed to fires has reduced in recent years.
Similarly, I don't even have to make the effort to look up why insurance salesmen are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of using 'climate change' to increase their premiums... they must be laughing all the way to the bank.
I leave it up to you to try using the internet as a tool for finding out if '100's' of Chinese people - out of a population of 1.3 BILLION - dying recently as a result of rare weather conditions is really the first signs of the end of the world you want to believe it is!
If you reply, PLEASE try to steer clear of relying on name-calling, guilt-tripping, and tear-jurking. Try to challenge any points you disagree with with some quality responses and counter-arguements. After all, if you want to show by-example that a green life really IS worth living - we need to see that it's more than a never-ending morbid pop-fatalism.
Ask yourself also why the insurance companies are planning for further more frequent extreme weather events as described by the ABI spokesman on BBC Breakfast TV this morning. Do they do this for fun - I don't think so!
I bet it's a good excuse to put the premiums up.
Lucibee asked
quote:
Can someone please explain to me why AGW deniers feel that this is some sort of class war?
I don't think class has anything to do with scepticism of AGW. I do think that 2 issues have become intertwined.
1) Scepticism of the validity of the science and corresponding trust that models correctly predict with near 100 % certainty that anthropic CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change.
2) The political action that would be taken to "save" mankind / "the planet" if it was believed that the dire predictions of the models was true.
If you are a sceptic in 1) then you necessarily believe that the actions in 2) are not appropriate.
If you then discuss 2) and look at how the world will change if political action is taken to massively reduce CO2 then clearly certain "luxuries/necessities" we have become used to will go except for the very rich; and like a chain reaction similarly all the way down the social hierarchy because that's how capitalism works ie the three pillars of supply, demand and money.
CO2 is a byproduct of most physical products that humans create, whether it's flying, cooking, manufacturing etc etc. So supply will go down, demand will not reduce so money will be the arbiter and prices will go up to balance the equation.
So not class division just the way the world is - a money transactional world and if you don't believe 1) then you won't support 2). There's already talk about food prices going up (food supply going down) because biodiesel will be more profitable for farmers etc etc.
Well, it was a little tiny wincey bit of a rhetorical question...
I guess JL complains about us "middle-classers" because of some perceived benefit that we have something that they don't, but then I'm assuming JL is defining himself as "working" class. But then are those in the "ruling" classes any better off in the long run?
When anarchy rains (and so it will!), I think you will find that the bourgeouisie will be guillotined in the jihad that ensues, the working class will become the ruling elite, and round we shall go again.
But maybe the middle classes will remain as they were,...safe...., in the middle....?
Originally posted by Lucibee: Well, it was a little tiny wincey bit of a rhetorical question...
I guess JL complains about us "middle-classers" because of some perceived benefit that we have something that they don't, but then I'm assuming JL is defining himself as "working" class. But then are those in the "ruling" classes any better off in the long run?
When anarchy rains (and so it will!), I think you will find that the bourgeouisie will be guillotined in the jihad that ensues, the working class will become the ruling elite, and round we shall go again.
But maybe the middle classes will remain as they were,...safe...., in the middle....?
It's perfectly natural for us to want to improve our lot. However, the human race is now in the unique position of having some understanding and foresight of the possible global consequences of this, which of course seems to go against our natural tendency to consume and improve.
A lot of the arguments are not so much against AGW, but against our reaction towards it. I don't think we necessarily need to back-track on development - we are going to need all the technology and science we can lay our hands on to meet the challenges ahead.
As a species, we a likely to do ourselves a great deal of good by looking beyond the individual, even beyond humanity, to see how we interact with our environment and the other organisms with which we share this planet. We are only just beginning to understand how complex is this interaction, and to ignore it now would be a major mistake.
And btw, I don't really accept these class distinctions - we are all equal in this - floods and hurricanes don't discriminate between rich and poor, or even between the green and the not so green. What counts is our efforts to prepare for such events.
If you reply, PLEASE try to steer clear of relying on name-calling, guilt-tripping, and tear-jurking. Try to challenge any points you disagree with with some quality responses and counter-arguements. After all, if you want to show by-example that a green life really IS worth living - we need to see that it's more than a never-ending morbid pop-fatalism.
OK Roger, its a bit child like but you started the name calling way back with your attack on my honestly held view that one of the things we have lost with our new found prosperity is a sense of community. Its interesting to see this reemerging in the flood hit areas. If you can't stand the heat...
Just to reiterate, I started out as sceptical but listening to Steve_M and co who I initially attacked, I changed my mind. It didn;t help that Durkin played the mis-information game. You, JL et al just appear to be getting off on endless "Yes But" games (in my "psychology for dummies" book).
I reread the original lovelock books and discovered I'd misinterpreted alot of it. I then went out and bought his later works and it seems to me, a non-scientist, to make sense of what I observe. I'm not sure at his ripe old age he has anything other than good intentions at heart.
I am also wading through Bjorn Lomberg to get the other side (though its hard going).
Your name calling of "Greenies" and their so called envy driven conspiracy is ludicrous. Its a no-brainer that demand can not continue to outstrip supply without consequences, you don't need to research to understand that. Ultimately all problems are rooted in population pressures including AGW.
For myself, I am anything but a stereotypical green, but as part of my effort I have given up my very lucrative contracting business so that I can work from home and not travel the length and breadth of southern England and the Midlands.
I advocate a high tech future with a population of 1 billion achieved over 150 years with all the peoples of the world enjoying the benefits of the properity this will hopefully bring while at the same time respecting the environment that sustains us and the peoples who choose to live close to the earth. Anything wrong with that?
BTW, The news today is:
Lewis Gordon Pugh has set a record for an endurance swin of 1km at the north pole - because he could.
500 dead in Hungary due to the heatwave. Its not that this is an unknown phenonemen its the increased frequency that is of concern
Oxford flooding and Reading in danger
Patio Heaters are to double to 2.3 million. The emissions from these are collosal and they are used on average 3 hours a day during July amd August !! Why??
340,000 homes in Gloucester, Tewkesbury and Cheltenham without water.
Gordon Brown and the Environment Agency conducting a review of infrastructure defences in view of Climate Change.
Isn't shocking how little progress we've made in the past 17 years...
Lucibee, shocking but predictable don't you think?
It seems to escape most people that we are actually subserviant to nature not the other way round. Look at the stance made by Roger58 who believes mankind will "continue to flourish" with a doubling of the world population !!
The July floods show how vulnerable we are when we lose what have become basic survival tools.
Gordon Brown was apparently extremely worried by the potential loss of a key power substation. The good people of Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury (as an absolute minium) were literally inches away from disaster and we're not talking an inability to watch Coronation Street !!
Gordon Brown was apparently extremely worried by the potential loss of a key power substation.
Err... yes... and every right to be worried. As far as I can tell, that particular substation distributes power not only to western Gloucestershire, but also to Herefordshire, and parts of Worcestershire.
Isn't shocking how little progress we've made in the past 17 years...
Looks like the smart money (i.e. cynical but profitable) might be betting on Business as Usual (IPCC's BAU). But reversing the question of this thread - Is BAU accceptable/viable? IMOHO business works best in conditions of stability (US in WW2) compared to instability (Somalia, Iraq, ).
I think it's far too risky and dangerous for business to have an unsettled global climate with no upper limits on instability. From memory Fred Pearce's book "Last Generation" suggests that over a century the cost of green measures will cost two years. That is we'll be at the wealth of a 98 years BAU in 100 years green. Hardly noticeable. Sooner we start (sigh) the better.
So maybe the smarter money will go green.
BTW surfing for Thatcher's speeches? You should get out more.
It was a tip-off from James Lovelock's autobiog Homage to Gaia, which I am reading at the moment - so I thought I'd google Maggie on climate change and see what came up...
