"Bio-Diversity" The next great money grab.

[Slyjoe]

So when the "Global Warming" was exposed as a bit of a sham to grab the cash, they changed its name to "Climate Change" which, again, was pretty much the same thing in a different wrapper.
So now its been re-packaged again as "Bio-Diversity".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8098540...

http://news.google.co.uk/news/search?pz=1&cf=a...

Watch this space - the other two will fade into history, and we'll all be made to pay our environment taxes for this one.

[thinfourth2]

Can't see the downside to not destroying animals and habitats.

Or do you want the world turned into one huge concrete playground

[Mojocvh]

thinfourth2 said:

Can't see the downside to not destroying animals and habitats.

Or do you want the world turned into one huge concrete playground

Stupid reply indeed, the OP did not suggest anything of the sort.

[FarleyRusk]

thinfourth2 said:

Can't see the downside to not destroying animals and habitats.

Or do you want the world turned into one huge concrete playground

You're right of course, but the question is how much of your wealth should you divert to the issue? You see one one side, the activists would have you spending everything you have now and mortgaging your future income and your children's future income too and end up doing something ineffectual with it all (Such as building useless big windmills that end up slaughtering millions of birds).

Greedy bad corporates, on the other side - let's call them "Big Oil" - would rather spend nothing.

The greatest threat to "biodiversity" is population growth. My proposal is to stop giving money to the third world to slow or reverse the population growth rate and protect "biodiversity". Can't see a downside to that.

[thinfourth2]

I don't see how bio diversity can let the watermelons affect my life as i don't see how my actions are directly affecting bio diversity, well apart from the bunny i ran over yesterday.

Where as CO2 let the watermelons point to everything I did that used energy and they could call me a planet killer and giving them a direct excuse to interfere with my life.


However the government didn't give a fk about CO2 they just wanted more cash, If CO2 was such a huge threat then they would of banned large cars instead of just taxing them. they will always give us more stealth taxes as that is the way they work. That is an entirely separate issue.

If Bio diversity was proved to be a bunch of crock tomorrow then we would be taxed first thing on Monday morning under another banner.

You can keep disproving as many things as you want and still the stealth taxes will come.

So don't confuse the actions of governments with the screaming of the watermelons

[Halb]

thinfourth2 said:

Can't see the downside to not destroying animals and habitats.

Or do you want the world turned into one huge concrete playground

I know. I doubt the trend to rip up jungles for palm oil and grazing land will be halted much but it is nice that people wish to try.

Edited by Halb on Saturday 30th October 12:39

[Hedders]

"After late-night negotiations, the conference also adopted a new treaty, the Nagoya Protocol, to manage the world's genetic resources and share the multi-billion benefits with developing nations.

What does that mean?

[dirkgently]

FarleyRusk said:

The greatest threat to "biodiversity" is population growth. My proposal is to stop giving money to the third world to slow or reverse the population growth rate and protect "biodiversity". Can't see a downside to that.

Ah, the elephant in the room.

[Some Gump]

thinfourth2 said:

Can't see the downside to not destroying animals and habitats.

Or do you want the world turned into one huge concrete playground

I'd prefer a concrete schoolyard. We'd at least have original beats from real live MC's. No rabbit-in-a-hat tricks, though - which is a pity.

Edited by Some Gump on Saturday 30th October 13:29

[voyds9]

thinfourth2 said:

Can't see the downside to not destroying animals and habitats.

Or do you want the world turned into one huge concrete playground

I hope you aren't saying we should artificially sustain an obsolete species.

Make way for the new. New species will arise to fill new gaps in the ecosystem.

[ninja-lewis]

Hedders said:

"After late-night negotiations, the conference also adopted a new treaty, the Nagoya Protocol, to manage the world's genetic resources and share the multi-billion benefits with developing nations.

What does that mean?

Sounds like preventing companies patenting genes and genomes (considered discoveries rather than inventions) and making them share the benefits with governments and/or local communities that provided them with the traditional knowledge or bio resources. Sounds sensible really - you can't patent life!

[Halb]

voyds9 said:

thinfourth2 said:

Can't see the downside to not destroying animals and habitats.

Or do you want the world turned into one huge concrete playground

I hope you aren't saying we should artificially sustain an obsolete species.

Make way for the new. New species will arise to fill new gaps in the ecosystem.

What makes a species obsolete? Humans artificially destroying the habitat so they don't have anywhere to live any more?
Are Orangs obsolete?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/orangutan...
Species which have taken millions of years to appear will be replaced in a decade by brand new apes?

[turbobloke]

I'll have a pound of biodiversity in a bag please mister oh and some sherbet

Won't somebody think of the childwenfish?

[singlecoil]

dirkgently said:

FarleyRusk said:

The greatest threat to "biodiversity" is population growth. My proposal is to stop giving money to the third world to slow or reverse the population growth rate and protect "biodiversity". Can't see a downside to that.

Ah, the elephant in the room.

Ah, the Hardinian taboo.

[Blue Meanie]

thinfourth2 said:

Can't see the downside to not destroying animals and habitats.

Or do you want the world turned into one huge concrete playground

That's not the issue. It is the blackmail that 3rd world countries are participating in that is the joke. Give us stloads of money or we'll kill this badger, cut down these trees. We are outbidding industry to 'save the planet'. If these countries gave a real fk they would just take action, but money talks, and you, and I will be paying. Do not think of it as conservation, rather a flow of money to developing nations.

[turbobloke]

Blue Meanie said:

thinfourth2 said:

Can't see the downside to not destroying animals and habitats.

Or do you want the world turned into one huge concrete playground

That's not the issue. It is the blackmail that 3rd world countries are participating in that is the joke. Give us stloads of money or we'll kill this badger, cut down these trees. We are outbidding industry to 'save the planet'. If these countries gave a real fk they would just take action, but money talks, and you, and I will be paying. Do not think of it as conservation, rather a flow of money to developing nations.

Added to which, what's the upside to using that money flow to freeze-frame the current situation, it sounds like self appointed conservationists are claiming to know better than nature what's fit to survive and what isn't. We are a fully paid up part of nature too, but human haters in the environ mental movement forget this. To protect our own interests as a species we need to use our intelligence wisely, this costs next to nothing but it might put a lot of shrill individuals in the voluntary sector out of a job and is terribly politically incorrect, it seems agreeing with fashionably collective emoting is the aim more often than not.