Why dont we all just give up then?
Discussion
I don't normally post any threads on here, as most people on here usually post about what I'm thinking about in a much more eloquent way than I possibly could, but today, I read something in my local rag that quite frankly, has me wondering why we don't just all give up right now.
It was going on about climate change, and it was saying that Newcastle (where I live) was one of the first cities to try and become a "carbon free" city. Ironic then, that the local council has gone to so much trouble causing congestion in the city centre, if that is what it wants to achieve.
However, thats not the bit that annoyed me. No, it was a boxout section, and in it was the views of a scientist, putting forth a potential scenario that may happen in 15 years time (i.e. 2020). He basically believed that to make a difference to the climate, we would have to give up many of the conveniences and luxuries that we have now, and said that in the future, things like TV's, hifi's, and even things like electric toothbrushes would have to be banned.
Maybe its just me, but this is just totally ridiculous. I bet its only this country who is thinking about this, and yet, we represent probably no more than 1% of the world population, so while all of us brits give up our plasma tv's in 2020, in order to return to being cavemen, the rest of the world still pollutes as much or more than it ever has.
It also went on about how we had 20 days of moderate - poor air quality in urban areas last year. Surely, in the days of the industrial revolution until fairly recently, that would have been a daily occurence. Cant these people see that we have, and are making progress, without all these stupid drastic measures that these mad bastards are considering???
They want us to give up our cars, but they do nothing about the filthy diesel buses that pollute our cities far more than cars. Now they want us to give up on the very things that make life worth living. I'm sure I am not alone in not particularly wanting a return to the jurassic era.
Not many things annoy me, but I read this and not only was I livid, but feel its an exercise in futility. If these lentil munching arseholes have their way, we really will be cavemen within 100 years. WTF is wrong with this country?
It was going on about climate change, and it was saying that Newcastle (where I live) was one of the first cities to try and become a "carbon free" city. Ironic then, that the local council has gone to so much trouble causing congestion in the city centre, if that is what it wants to achieve.
However, thats not the bit that annoyed me. No, it was a boxout section, and in it was the views of a scientist, putting forth a potential scenario that may happen in 15 years time (i.e. 2020). He basically believed that to make a difference to the climate, we would have to give up many of the conveniences and luxuries that we have now, and said that in the future, things like TV's, hifi's, and even things like electric toothbrushes would have to be banned.
Maybe its just me, but this is just totally ridiculous. I bet its only this country who is thinking about this, and yet, we represent probably no more than 1% of the world population, so while all of us brits give up our plasma tv's in 2020, in order to return to being cavemen, the rest of the world still pollutes as much or more than it ever has.
It also went on about how we had 20 days of moderate - poor air quality in urban areas last year. Surely, in the days of the industrial revolution until fairly recently, that would have been a daily occurence. Cant these people see that we have, and are making progress, without all these stupid drastic measures that these mad bastards are considering???
They want us to give up our cars, but they do nothing about the filthy diesel buses that pollute our cities far more than cars. Now they want us to give up on the very things that make life worth living. I'm sure I am not alone in not particularly wanting a return to the jurassic era.
Not many things annoy me, but I read this and not only was I livid, but feel its an exercise in futility. If these lentil munching arseholes have their way, we really will be cavemen within 100 years. WTF is wrong with this country?
Well - I read something today which suggested that nuclear power generation was less expensive than Gas , and MUCH less expensive than windfarms.
( oh dear...... the beard and sandals brigade and labour party will now find it harder to justify those grotesque wind farms then
)
So if we re-build some of the nuclear power stations rather than scrap them , and spend less on wind power (uneconomic ) - then we will have more carbon friendly power supply and can still watch tv and drive loud
off V8's 
( oh dear...... the beard and sandals brigade and labour party will now find it harder to justify those grotesque wind farms then
) So if we re-build some of the nuclear power stations rather than scrap them , and spend less on wind power (uneconomic ) - then we will have more carbon friendly power supply and can still watch tv and drive loud
off V8's Google thorium cycle- top line is there is enough thorium to make enough energy to meet the globes current demands for the next millenium,it produces 3 orders of magnitude less radioactive waste and is inherrently safe as its subcritical and needs a linear motor to drive the pile critical.
The only problem is the worlds thorium resrves are in politically unstable states like , oh...India and Australia.
It will also produce hydrogen for cars.
Why arn't we developing it-well the indusry has all its eggs in the ex-military uranium/plutonium cycle which was never intended to be for civil use in the first place.
Greens and Nuclear business...a plague on both their houses.
The only problem is the worlds thorium resrves are in politically unstable states like , oh...India and Australia.
It will also produce hydrogen for cars.
Why arn't we developing it-well the indusry has all its eggs in the ex-military uranium/plutonium cycle which was never intended to be for civil use in the first place.
Greens and Nuclear business...a plague on both their houses.
nonegreen said:
The answer to all this is a network of independants standing for local election with the express intent of smashing the labour and liberal filth hold on local government. They got there by stealth they can be got rid of by stealth.
And therin, lies a particularly fantastic idea, of which I had never really considered.
Despite being in the bowels, so to say, of the internet and communications revolution, the possibility of a genuine political party diverse, new, full of normal people, and fused by the internet, hadn't actually occured to me.
I wonder how long it will be before the internet produces a new and elected political party?
>> Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 25th October 00:03
and I thought postal voting was suspect!
From WIRED in 2000 just after the First American election cock-up
"After the White House called for the study, the foundation gave a grant to the Internet Policy Institute and the University of Maryland to study the question. The question was examined by a committee of political scientists, computer scientists, elections officials and others. Much of their work was done at a workshop in October 2000.
Before the 2000 elections, much of the interest in online elections centered on the potential convenience of voting at home, the report said, but added the focus now is more on reliability.
"The security problems that could arise might well undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process," said David Cheney, of the nonpartisan Internet Policy Institute. "We must dispel the myths associated with Internet voting and educate public officials to avoid this scenario."
If OberStumbundFuehrer Cheney doesn't like it it must be a) viable and b) democratic....Hm,
>> Edited by sideways mostly cos I still can't spell
>> Edited by sideways mostly on Tuesday 25th October 00:16
From WIRED in 2000 just after the First American election cock-up
"After the White House called for the study, the foundation gave a grant to the Internet Policy Institute and the University of Maryland to study the question. The question was examined by a committee of political scientists, computer scientists, elections officials and others. Much of their work was done at a workshop in October 2000.
Before the 2000 elections, much of the interest in online elections centered on the potential convenience of voting at home, the report said, but added the focus now is more on reliability.
"The security problems that could arise might well undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process," said David Cheney, of the nonpartisan Internet Policy Institute. "We must dispel the myths associated with Internet voting and educate public officials to avoid this scenario."
If OberStumbundFuehrer Cheney doesn't like it it must be a) viable and b) democratic....Hm,
>> Edited by sideways mostly cos I still can't spell
>> Edited by sideways mostly on Tuesday 25th October 00:16
Most scientists and climate models are divergent as to the time scale and severity of the effects and causes of global warming. If you look it up on howstuffworks.com, it even says so. Plus, I have an actual paper on CO2 sequestration that says so as well. There is even debate as to how it fits into the temperature cycles that the planet has experienced over the course of millenia. The problem with the chicken little approach is that, in order to make policy decisions and appropriate money and time to work on a problem, you need to have the time scale and severity of the effects fairly well quantified. Or else, how can you be sure that you are spending the money the best way? I really have a problem with scientific papers that use global warming as a data point to legitimize their research (addressing another problem: like "we have to do this to reduce CO2 because of global warming" ). Global warming is possible, but not well enough understood in some measurable way to base decisions on it. Chemicals of any kind and heat that are exhaust into the atmosphere represent the inefficiency of industry as well as pollution. These points, in and of themselves, are sufficient to support whatever research you're doing. It's a harder engineering challenge to clean things up and make them more efficient while keeping in mind costs. I've often felt that the hysteria about global warming has been enflamed so that lazier scientists can get support for what they're doing even though it costs everyone more. It's a sloppier way to do things, abuses the trust of the public, and lets them off the hook from really working to find the most cost effective (but still cleaner) solution.
Ignore these people who say incendiary stuff just so they can get quoted in the paper. There are some scientists who turn out to be attention whores. If someone's conclusions based on their model seem unreasonable and predict climate change at a faster and more permanent change than you've seen ever in your life, maybe there's something wrong with their model. All you can do is the best you can with what you have, and can afford, right now, and don't worry about the rest. We don't know how fast the effects of global warming will take place, but I don't think the next ice age will be two weeks from now. And frankly, we will have to just handle it when it comes, as it's already set in motion now, isn't it?
>> Edited by seafarer on Tuesday 25th October 01:09
>> Edited by seafarer on Tuesday 25th October 01:35
Ignore these people who say incendiary stuff just so they can get quoted in the paper. There are some scientists who turn out to be attention whores. If someone's conclusions based on their model seem unreasonable and predict climate change at a faster and more permanent change than you've seen ever in your life, maybe there's something wrong with their model. All you can do is the best you can with what you have, and can afford, right now, and don't worry about the rest. We don't know how fast the effects of global warming will take place, but I don't think the next ice age will be two weeks from now. And frankly, we will have to just handle it when it comes, as it's already set in motion now, isn't it?
>> Edited by seafarer on Tuesday 25th October 01:09
>> Edited by seafarer on Tuesday 25th October 01:35
sideways mostly said:
and I thought postal voting was suspect!
From WIRED in 2000 just after the First American election cock-up
"After the White House called for the study, the foundation gave a grant to the Internet Policy Institute and the University of Maryland to study the question. The question was examined by a committee of political scientists, computer scientists, elections officials and others. Much of their work was done at a workshop in October 2000.
Before the 2000 elections, much of the interest in online elections centered on the potential convenience of voting at home, the report said, but added the focus now is more on reliability.
"The security problems that could arise might well undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process," said David Cheney, of the nonpartisan Internet Policy Institute. "We must dispel the myths associated with Internet voting and educate public officials to avoid this scenario."
If OberStumbundFuehrer Cheney doesn't like it it must be a) viable and b) democratic....Hm,
>> Edited by sideways mostly cos I still can't spell
>> Edited by sideways mostly on Tuesday 25th October 00:16
I have that problem with my spewing too!
I know what you mean about the electronic security. I don't think that we're ready for electronic voting yet. I personally have considerable resevations about that aspect, an it's possible that, that is why I'd not thought about this particular idea before.
Ther must be a much wider and deeper understanding of electronic security before it can work without causing problems. It's not that, people who understand now could not make it happen, it's just that not enough "normal" people have considered how it could work and be abused.
On the other hand, most things that government do are, or at least should be transparent. I don't think for example, that it would be at all bad if debating legislation took place on line.
I guess from my own perspective, I can see my original thought being a certainty, it's just that I can't yet see or imagine the timescale.
>> Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 25th October 01:18
seafarer said:
I guess this must be the wrong thread, but there's some interesting stuff in there!
Now all I have to do is figure out where it should have been posted!
Edited to add;
I retract my statement.... How did we end up on e-politics!
I must be loosing it.
Further edited to add;
Ahhhh. It was the evil dictator that did it!
>> Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 25th October 01:27
uhhh...huh? It was based on the first two paragraphs of the first post, about how we would have to live like cave people (or something like that) to have a "carbon free" city and prevent further climate change. But he also went on to say that most other countries in the world can't afford such drastic measures and the small amount that can be done by the population of Britain wouldn't be enough to make a dent in the pollution created worldwide. Sorry if I went off topic somewhere....
pbirkett said:
I read something in my local rag that quite frankly, has me wondering why we don't just all give up right now.
It was going on about climate change, and it was saying that Newcastle (where I live) was one of the first cities to try and become a "carbon free" city.
Since I single handedly wrecked the thread I thought I ought to at least make an effort to bring it back on track!
I basically agree with you, but on the other hand there is another perspective.
Since the "stick age" (kind of relative to the stone an bronze ages), man has been able to work stuff out, and his mate has been able to copy it, to everyones general benefit, and no-one's harm.
If you look at what we're capable of now (compared with the stick age), it's getting to the point where if say everyone commuted to the moon every day, the resources would run out pretty quickly.
Notwithstanding some major development, there are loads of reasons why this couldn't be possible anyway, but you get the idea.
Is it right to just accept that everyone can have the latest thing, just like that? Maybe just thinking about that idea is enough. Ultimately, what appears in the press is just a reflection of what people think about.
Anyhow, looking on the bright side, if we are on the edge of major recession, what better way of thinking about not being able to buy a new "sainsburys special - monster truck" (in a bigfoot stylee). At least one is doing one's bit for the environment.
I don't think that vast distruction as a result of climate change is a problem for next week, but is it right to produce vast quantities of waste (mobile phones, perhaps) that are impossible to recycle, just because huge companies are hell bent on keeping the market going?
There's an article in the latest Forbes magazine about a guy who figured out how to separate and recycle any, and I mean ANY, kind of plastic. Plastic trash and stuff could be basically "mined" out landfills and recycled, with non plastic stuff automatically separated. This is the kind of innovation that deserves our attention and support.
In unrelated news, I love that exploding head smiley.
In unrelated news, I love that exploding head smiley.
It can't be good for him!..seafarer said:
Most scientists and climate models are divergent as to the time scale and severity of the effects and causes of global warming. If you look it up on howstuffworks.com, it even says so. Plus, I have an actual paper on CO2 sequestration that says so as well. There is even debate as to how it fits into the temperature cycles that the planet has experienced over the course of millenia. The problem with the chicken little approach is that, in order to make policy decisions and appropriate money and time to work on a problem, you need to have the time scale and severity of the effects fairly well quantified. Or else, how can you be sure that you are spending the money the best way? I really have a problem with scientific papers that use global warming as a data point to legitimize their research (addressing another problem: like "we have to do this to reduce CO2 because of global warming" ). Global warming is possible, but not well enough understood in some measurable way to base decisions on it. Chemicals of any kind and heat that are exhaust into the atmosphere represent the inefficiency of industry as well as pollution. These points, in and of themselves, are sufficient to support whatever research you're doing. It's a harder engineering challenge to clean things up and make them more efficient while keeping in mind costs. I've often felt that the hysteria about global warming has been enflamed so that lazier scientists can get support for what they're doing even though it costs everyone more. It's a sloppier way to do things, abuses the trust of the public, and lets them off the hook from really working to find the most cost effective (but still cleaner) solution.
Ignore these people who say incendiary stuff just so they can get quoted in the paper. There are some scientists who turn out to be attention whores. If someone's conclusions based on their model seem unreasonable and predict climate change at a faster and more permanent change than you've seen ever in your life, maybe there's something wrong with their model. All you can do is the best you can with what you have, and can afford, right now, and don't worry about the rest. We don't know how fast the effects of global warming will take place, but I don't think the next ice age will be two weeks from now. And frankly, we will have to just handle it when it comes, as it's already set in motion now, isn't it?
Erm no. In a word. The predictions of global warming, now modified to climate change is based on climate Models. They have been around for many years and they are not supported by the data. Unfortunately global warming is now part of recieved thinking so its legitimate to describe it as fact. The result is a whole industry, hundreds of mortgages and jobs depend on the global warming lie. Just speak to any geologist and mention global warming and they will laugh.
Climate models are as relavent as science fantasy. Douglas Adams great arkelsiezure theory is more likely to be fact. Environmentalists are communist liars and we should hang the lot of em its utter bunk.
There is a great American Scientist Special on sustainability with some really intruiging information to explore-like the efficiency of our current systems which is in a word pants.About 3% of the energy value in a barrel of oil ends up doing usefull work-the rest is lost.
I agree the back to the caves school of thinking is precisely as rational as the intelligent design bandwagon.
We can have a rational sustainable economy without giving up what the past two hundred years has deliverred even with the explosive growth of China and India- but there are so many vested interests that it will have to come to a crisis before we make progress.
As an aside I am in the US at the moment and the recent weather has got them all thinking
I agree the back to the caves school of thinking is precisely as rational as the intelligent design bandwagon.
We can have a rational sustainable economy without giving up what the past two hundred years has deliverred even with the explosive growth of China and India- but there are so many vested interests that it will have to come to a crisis before we make progress.
As an aside I am in the US at the moment and the recent weather has got them all thinking
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff