Environmentalism

  • Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.

alecf

Forager
Jun 7, 2009
180
0
Nr Reading
You choose to ignore all the other facts and data, based on the fact that the blogger only has a few "degrees"

:lmao:

It means that the data cannot be considered reliable and is a secondary source of information.

I just think it should take good primary evidence from a reputable source to be a valid argument against the reputable evidence for climate change.

Oil companies have a lot of power, with the likes of BP and Exxon Mobil being richer than large countries such as poland. They have a lot riding on our continued consumption of oil, and so naturally they will do anything to disprove climate change. I bet a hell of a lot of doubting stories stem back eventually, (but anonymously) to oil companies.
How do we know the guy in that source is who he says he is?
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,709
1,947
Mercia
The part of this that makes me really laugh till it hurts is the apparent inability of those who pusue a "change agenda" to grasp the most basic fundamental principles of change management. For example:

"State in simple, unambigous terms, the problem, the options to resolve the problem, the selected resolution and the reason for that selection"

This really is change management at a ladybird book "Janet and John" level.

Unless all the people who have to effect a change want to effect a change, or are compelled to do so, the change will not happen. The idea that, because a lot of "clever" people believe in the need for change means that others will agree to carry it out, is so patently absurd that it makes my brain hurt.

How is it that such "clever" people cannot bring themselves to understand that labour forces HAVE bankrupted the businesses upon which their livelihood depends, that individuals have demonstrated that they place personal gain above societal gain, that governments will vote to stay in power ahead of doing "the right thing" is a source of bewilderment to me.

Do these people believe that third world governments will decide to impoverish their electorates in order to reduce emissions? When this will prevent them from being elected?

Do they believe that US governments will therefore decide to reduce their "standard of living" to a "third world" level?

Do they believe that a UK government will decide to tax personal transport out of existence...by collapsing the property market and putting all those who live outside public transport into negative equity?

Does anyone think ANY government will acknowledge that we need to reduce population? Thereby triggering a massive pension deficit crisis...and impinging on personal wealth..today...and rendering themselves unelectable against those who follow a "jam today" regime?

Really?

If you belive these things can be fixed, crack on

If not, fire up your 5 litre sports car and drive to the airport. It won't make any difference.

And to those who think they can make a difference (and dear Gods don't quote the fact you have a woodburner to me - I only have a limited number of guts to bust laughing), until you convince China to reduce per capita emissions, don't call me - and I wont call you!

Red
 

alecf

Forager
Jun 7, 2009
180
0
Nr Reading
You don't strike me as a very optimistic person... Its better to try and fail than to fail to try. (in my book)



And you do realise that chinas per capita emissions are 80th in the world, behind many others (including new zealand which sources over 70% of its electricity from renewables), and yet it is still at the forefront investment into renewable technology. It could surpass europe's 20% renewable target before we do.
 
Last edited:

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,709
1,947
Mercia
Do you think optimism over realism is pragmatism then?

And yes, I am quite aware of Chinas per capita emissions. My point is that they are entitled to emit just as much, per capita, as Britain. The idea that they should be restricted to a lower target is...highly objectionable at best.

Red
 

rik_uk3

Banned
Jun 10, 2006
13,320
24
69
south wales
We are a consumer society, we all buy too much 'stuff'. Reduce your electricity at home? Would you like to go back 50 years when for instance a typical small home would only be running a few light bulbs, a radio, maybe a TV and possibly a fridge? The odd surge in power usage when mom ran the Hoover over the carpet?

No, if the vast majority of people are honest they would not like to go back to that; I for one would not, been there, done that and it was not all the 'good old days' are cracked up to be.

I want my home network, music systems, fridges, freezers big flat screen telly's etc so lets cut the crap and get the nuke stations built and online;)
 

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,274
40
South Marches
I run 4 lamps for the price and power consumption I used to run one, so if everyone did that it would cut power consumption for lighting at least by 75%, so reducing the need for more power stations, yes Nuke stations are the way to go, but we could have less of them if we reduce our household power consumption even by 25%. Then cut the population by 75% and we have almost solved the problem of carbon usage :eek:

Wings :)
 
Why is it suddenly it ok to suggest that we have NP?
years ago you would have been the devil incarnate to even suggest such a thing (exactly as is being done to climate change realists now)

Have we forgotten Chernobyl already?

What about all the millions of people that where parading up and down London's streets with placards demanding that NP is ceased?
These were people just like you and I.
I used to wave the placard(not literally) back then against NP in the way that you do now with CO2, now you want NP back... I hope you see where I am coming from. One NP station meltdown and the lot will be scrapped and we will be scrabbling to build carbon fuelled stuff again, just like before when it happened

Thatcher wanted to destroy the Miners back then and used Co2 as her way of discrediting them AS stated by Lord Lawson her then Chancellor (in case some one wants to be pedantic and ask for my source) and offering NP as an alternative.

Lawson still blames Thatcher for the start of the whole co2 nonsense, admitting that they were desperate to find a way to get rid of the Miners(and the unions) and were grasping at straws to find something.

One scientist Swedish I think, made a speculative claim about "possible " rises of co2( ending his statement with "We just don't know") and she latched on immediately, and started funding it with limitless amounts of cash

Since then a colossal industry has been built off the back of it, and the whole thing spiralled out of control, and now many Universities rely on cash from the myth, and cannot speak a word against it or the plug will be pulled.

We ended up with NP, the miners were destroyed and Thatchers main opponents were gone. She went on to rule for three terms.

Co2 is not a pollutant, and is essential to plant life and therefore essential to all life , Radiation most certainly is a pollutant .
I have seen first hand the results, cancer ridden dying and horribly deformed children that were still being born two generations later.

Taking this into consideration I think I will stick with our friend and allie, good old Co2.

My, how times have changed.:confused:
 

silvergirl

Nomad
Jan 25, 2006
379
0
Angus,Scotland
If the world was able to switch, today, from fossil fuels to nuclear, the world supply of uranium (including the stuf that is being strip mined in national parks!), our current technology is gear up for, would last 48hrs. And power stations are made from concrete which contributes nearly 5% of global CO2 emmissions, and uranium ore is mined in one of the most polluting ways imaginable, don't think it is a magic bullet.

Nuclear is not a long term option, it can't be. Perhaps we look at the french and think they've got the right idea, but if the whole world turned their production to nuclear, we'd soon be having wars over more resource issues. And if we've got nuclear we then Cannot tell the likes of Iran it can't have.

I have to say Red is right about change, and change management.
Unless all the people who have to effect a change want to effect a change, or are compelled to do so, the change will not happen.
They way our society works means that tinkering round the edges won't work.

The problem with climate change (to use that broad overarching term, which is often misussed), is that it does involves so many complex factors that chnaging only one aspect may not (probably won't) have the desired effect.
And our consumer based society (where we have become consumers, not citizens) is based on growth, disposability, lack of value and has a monetary gain built into every trasaction we do.
And almost every other culture in the world aspires to what we have in terms of material wealth, and as has been said why shouldn't they.

But isn't there something a bit odd about that? I have stayed in an island nation, where one year there was a bumper crop, all the farmers made loads of money and instead of investing in their farms (or water harvesting which they badly needed), rushed out and bought cars.
No problem their they had the money for the first time and it was an aspiration.
Except the main island was 10 km by 4km, had one dirt track road and no petrol station. The government then had to spend a huge proportion of it budget building a 'proper' tarred road (1.5kms worth), with resources brought in from overseas.
The cars are not used for anything but staus symbols, and the year after they were all bought the world market was swamped and no one had any money to buy fuel as they couldn't sell their crops. And this is in a country less than 4m above sea level and will probably feel the effects of climate change more than most.

All that said though, I am still hopefull for the future.
I have to be, its an amazing world out there and we don't understand even half of it.
 
Last edited:

locum76

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Oct 9, 2005
2,772
9
47
Kirkliston
Meh,

none of it will be sorted out for real until the human population of the planet suffers it first serious crash in numbers. Then folks might start to change to a zero growth way of thinking.

Until then the best we can do is prepare ourselves, look after our kin, look after our wee patch of ground and try to enjoy life.

EDIT: there's is a huge amount of reading in these hyperlinks. It is worth reading them all before making up your mind about climate change and its implications. I would say it's important to think about these things in context.

EDIT 2: If Leonna Lewis want's to have someone plant trees for her then thats fine with me, as long as they are apple trees or native ones. :D
 
Last edited:

jonnno

Forager
Mar 19, 2009
223
0
50
Belfast
I read as far as "global warmingista climate Nazi’s associated with the IPCC cabal" and stopped. There's no way that guy is unbiased. As a tip - any article defending a position that requires them to accuse their opposition of being a Nazi can safely be burned and the writer ignored forever (unless the article is somehow concerned with actual Nazis - that'd be fine :))

I see loads of posts above making accusations like 75% of all of x do y type stuff and have to wonder where all the facts come from. There are actually loads of totally uncorroborated snippets of info littered through this thread and I can't help but think that there are plenty of people who open the paper or turn on the TV, hear a factoid of some sort and assume it's true because they heard it from what they consider to be a reliable source (This link gives some insight http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html). Even information that appears to come from a valid study can be totally incorrect through anything from a lack of understanding of the questions to a lack of understanding of statistics to wanting to see a particular result. It's back to the same old thing again - believe it if it's been peer reviewed somewhere that is respectable and always be skeptical regardless of how confident you are.

 

Jusali

Member
May 22, 2008
32
0
Bristol
The whole premise that the world order is created on is Capitalism. The underlying nature of capitalism is continuous growth, continuous growth relies on continuous consumption.
The problem we have, is the resources we have are finite, for food, for energy and even for clean water. Until we can dispel the mantra that growth/greed is good we're f***ed.
Personally I think we've got our head in the sand and are berking up the wrong tree regarding C02 emmissions, that's just one card in a whole house of cards that is gonna come down around our ears. We're simply running out of resources to sustain the current population let alone population growth predictions.
 

jonnno

Forager
Mar 19, 2009
223
0
50
Belfast
It's a fair point that capitalism is both the reason we're so prosperous as well as the reason we can't stop consuming. My personal view is that corporations are far too involved in things like politics and that it will ultimately screw us over (McDonalds getting to direct policy etc). The biggest problem seems to be that capitalism is crap but still the best of a bad bunch when it comes to political ideas (Go socialism!) and the truth is, a huge percentage of the population can't be trusted to make decisions for the greater good because have knee jerk reactions to information rather than solid, in depth contemplation about what is best meaning they can be too easily led.

More importantly corporates are far too good at marketing stuff to us and obviously have absolutely no scruples. 3 mins of ads on TV for health and beauty products containing some of the most ****, made up science I have ever seen shows that people believe it and go buy the product. The infamous "8 out of 10 cats" type study where the company makes sure that an experiment has the intended results is almost the sole reason that this thread is so disappointing. People can be made to think whatever you want if you know how to go about it (or to put it another way, how the hell to people still believe in crap like homeopathy - it's been discredited for years, it even on balance sounds totally implausable but is still a multi million pound industry - they know how to market and manipulate!) So the same goes for climate change. Both sides are fully capable of creating a super sounding argument loaded with stats and sciency sounding words that seem totally plausible and peoples minds get made up without looking deeper into the study (The global warming swindle programme is a great example - pretty much discredited as sensationalist nonsense but still cited all over the place as proof).

I love this article and I think it makes a great point:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/05/beauty-industry-fraud



The whole premise that the world order is created on is Capitalism. The underlying nature of capitalism is continuous growth, continuous growth relies on continuous consumption.
The problem we have, is the resources we have are finite for food, for energy and even for clean water. Until we can dispel the mantra that growth/greed is good we're ******.
Personally I think we've got our head in the sand and are berking up the wrong tree regarding C02 emmissions, that's just one card in a whole house of cards that is gonna come down around our ears. We're simply running out of resources to sustain the current population let alone population growth predictions.
 
Last edited:

rik_uk3

Banned
Jun 10, 2006
13,320
24
69
south wales
Meh,

none of it will be sorted out for real until the human population of the planet suffers it first serious crash in numbers. Then folks might start to change to a zero growth way of thinking.

Until then the best we can do is prepare ourselves, look after our kin, look after our wee patch of ground and try to enjoy life.

EDIT: there's is a huge amount of reading in these hyperlinks. It is worth reading them all before making up your mind about climate change and its implications. I would say it's important to think about these things in context.

EDIT 2: If Leonna Lewis want's to have someone plant trees for her then thats fine with me, as long as they are apple trees or native ones. :D

Some good links there Locum. I've always been a fan of NP to be honest, its killed far, far less than coal powered stations ever have. What the one link talks about I also agree with, that a lot of 'green living' is really bunkum making the 'doer' feel good but in reality making no impact on things. When you look at the pollution created to make your solar panels you have to ask the question "Is it worth it"? Don't get me wrong, if I had the money I would go for off grid living in a big way but not because I think its saving mommy earth, more than I like to be prepared and I'm a bit of a techno geek at heart.
 

Jusali

Member
May 22, 2008
32
0
Bristol
It's a fair point that capitalism is both the reason we're so prosperous as well as the reason we can't stop consuming. My personal view is that corporations are far too involved in things like politics and that it will ultimately screw us over (McDonalds getting to direct policy etc).

More importantly corporates are far too good at marketing stuff to us and obviously have absolutely no scruples. 3 mins of ads on TV for health and beauty products containing some of the most ****, made up science I have ever seen shows that people believe it and go buy the product. The infamous "8 out of 10 cats" type study where the company makes sure that an experiment has the intended results is almost the sole reason that this thread is so disappointing. People can be made to think whatever you want if you know how to go about it (or to put it another way, how the hell to people still believe in crap like homeopathy - it's been discredited for years but is still a multi million pound industry - they know how to market and manipulate!)

The biggest problem seems to be that capitalism is crap but still the best of a bad bunch when it comes to political ideas (Go socialism!)


I totally agree political idealism isn't going to do a thing either. I think what we have as a model (political landscape) reflects the human condition and that is to consume and protect our supplies. We are just a glorified mammal with our individual survival being foremost in our minds. I simply don't think we have the capacity to mobilise and even collectively comprehend our postion in this planet because we all hark back to our individual concerns.
Now, if we was ants ;)
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,709
1,947
Mercia
Lovelock nailed it.

Do he and his wife try to limit the number of flights they take? "No we don't. Because we can't." And recycling, he adds, is "almost certainly a waste of time and energy", while having a "green lifestyle" amounts to little more than "ostentatious grand gestures". He distrusts the notion of ethical consumption. "Because always, in the end, it turns out to be a scam ... or if it wasn't one in the beginning, it becomes one."

For those who don't know him....

In 1965 executives at Shell wanted to know what the world would look like in the year 2000. They consulted a range of experts, who speculated about fusion-powered hovercrafts and "all sorts of fanciful technological stuff". When the oil company asked the scientist James Lovelock, he predicted that the main problem in 2000 would be the environment. "It will be worsening then to such an extent that it will seriously affect their business," he said.

"And of course," Lovelock says, with a smile 43 years later, "that's almost exactly what's happened."

Lovelock has been dispensing predictions from his one-man laboratory in an old mill in Cornwall since the mid-1960s, the consistent accuracy of which have earned him a reputation as one of Britain's most respected - if maverick - independent scientists. Working alone since the age of 40, he invented a device that detected CFCs, which helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer, and introduced the Gaia hypothesis, a revolutionary theory that the Earth is a self-regulating super-organism. Initially ridiculed by many scientists as new age nonsense, today that theory forms the basis of almost all climate science.



Lovelock is the one guy who, for me, has realised that playing silly games like installing woodburners and having raffia shopping bags isn't going to make a jot of difference to the global outcome

Red
 

Broch

Life Member
Jan 18, 2009
7,983
7,759
Mid Wales
www.mont-hmg.co.uk
I believe in climate change; it will happen (is happening and always has) and we haven’t a hope of stopping it.

What we should be concentrating on is technologies and strategies to survive and even exploit the changes that will happen. That’s what our great great grandchildren will thank us for, not for trying to hold back the tide.

I get abused for driving a Land Rover; often accused of wasting the planet’s resources. If I can be bothered I point out that over 80% of Land Rovers ever made are still used; that I need a 4x4 to get to my home in winter and that it would be a waste of resources to have two cars; that I use it for my holidays and don’t contribute to the vast amount of fuel burnt by sun-seeking holiday makers; a great deal of my house heating is from a log burner (sorry BR) that is supplied from a wood I manage myself; I have planted over 100 deciduous native trees in the last few years; I work from home so don’t have a daily commute... have I done this to save the planet? Sorry, but no, I do it because it’s convenient to me so it works.

Let’s dream of how good the British Wine will be in the future. :)

Cheers,

Broch
 

Lasse

Nomad
Aug 17, 2007
337
0
Belgium
Taking this into consideration I think I will stick with our friend and allie, good old Co2.

Dosis facit venenum.
Or translated: It is the dose that makes the poison.
Just like too high oxygen concentrations are toxic, too high carbon-dioxide concentrations are no good for us, but then with a less direct effect...
 

durulz

Need to contact Admin...
Jun 9, 2008
1,755
1
Elsewhere
Let’s dream of how good the British Wine will be in the future. :)

Interestingly, the climate in medieval England was a good 2 or 3 degrees warmer than today (and yet still didn't submerge under tons of defrosted Arctic ice...), which was warm enough to grow grapes and produce wine as far north as the midlands.

On a wider note, truth is, I personally have absolutely no way of knowing if theories/anti-theories* on climate change/global wamring* are right or wrong. Many on this thread have claimed that there are hidden agendas to climate change claims. That maybe so. But all I am left thinking is that it is equally likely that anti-climate change claims could also have a hidden agenda behind them.
And then it all just gets silly and ties itself in knots.
Fact is, I know pitifully little about such things. Yes, I could read up on both sides and make an informed opinion based on my own research. But I do not have the scientific background or schooling to learn such an insurmountable ice-berg of information. At some point I am going to have to 'take someone's word for it'. As has EVERYONE who has posted on this thread so far.
Therefore, I make no pretence to knowing what is right or wrong on this debate.
My best guess is that if one assumes the climate is changing due to humanity's actions, then it can do no harm to stop doing such silly things in the first place. I reckon that's all I can do.

*delete as you prefer
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE