Or somewhere between the two. Who knows. What we do as a nation will not affect the outcome in any significant way even if you do buy into the whole manmade climate change idea. We emit about 2% of manmade CO2 whilst China and India are set to double their output in the near future. We seem to think that going to bin collections every 2 weeks will make a difference.
I don't think any of the proposed sites are visible from where I live. Fortunately our local MP is more sympathetic with the locals than the applicants.
dude,what you saying, he is a tory. cutter of all things green. not wanting an argument, just playing. :smileys:
did he get his subsidy on his island before they cut them? is it himself or other government ministers that have registered land and islands off shore?
Just stick them near the Sellafield site. No one wants to go there as it is. A bit more ugliness won't make any difference.
Indeed. But that is a bit like saying, I may as well throw my Mars wrapper on the ground because frankly, it isn't going to make any difference to the litter problem overall. Or: I may as well sell guns to these guys because if I don't, someone else will, so what's the difference? The industrialised nations released most of the CO2, so they have to show the example, especially if they expect everyone else to clean up.
If you had 200 years, no one would do anything. If you have 50 years, no one does anything. If you had just 5 years, people would do something, but of course, it would be too late by then. Marvellous, innit?
I'm no greenie tree hugger, and I hate this recycling blx (not because I disagree with recycling but because its the wrong solution to the wrong problem). The enviro brigade seems to be driven by emotive language and sentiment rather than cold hard reason. If you want a serious eye-opener and have a spare few moments to take the intellectual equivalent of a cold shower take a look at this guy's blog (he's a physics professor, not some loon) specifically about limits and growth. If anything its a good argument for drilling into kids at the youngest possible age a fundamental understand of exponential functions. Galactic-Scale Energy | Do the Math Does the Logistic Shoe Fit? | Do the Math Can Economic Growth Last? | Do the Math
A much more interesting and relevant subject and one we can absolutely agree on, the continued reliance upon growth to fix our problems is doomed to failure. Here is another reference you might not have come across. http://digamo.free.fr/richardh.pdf The End of Growth by Richard Heinberg, who is bit of a tree hugger but he makes some very interesting arguments. The premiss of the book is that growth will inevitably end as a result of resource depletion, climate change (!) and financial instability.
I think we can certainly agree on that. I'll take a look. The most striking thing about the Do the Math blog conclusions is that, even with scifi levels solutions to energy problems we're still fucked long term because of physical limits: not even because of finite resources, but absolute physical limits of reality. The only options are transition to steady state economy or economic collapse. Neither of which will be particularly nice compared to what we're used to.
This constant demand,(and media/political approval for) for economic growth is a subject I commented on some time ago,and ties neatly in to the problem of population increases. If world population numbers remained relatively stable,is there any real need for economic growth?. People from less-developed countries may want the same living standards as we enjoy,which would require the manufacture of goods to allow them to enjoy it,but what then? In many ways,"economic growth",is an odd measure to claim as positive. If someone in the UK trades in their perfectly good,five year old Ducati for a shiny new one,presumably the transaction will be recorded and used as evidence of a thriving economy.And the Italian economy will show that it has,"grown",by the value of one motorcycle exported.Multiply the transaction by thousands and the Italian government will be basking in the light of public approval,because they have increased the value of exports. But you could say that it was a complete waste of the earths resources,(assuming that any motorcycle is a necessity,apart from the need to travel somewhere faster than walking): there is no doubt that there are more motorcycles in this country than there are people who wish to pay for/own and ride them,(otherwise I would not have the number of bikes I do).And the new bike Owner already had a perfectly good bike,but he just desired a newer one.And it appears that feeding the appetite for,"bigger/better/faster/more",i.e,economic growth,outweighs any political consideration for the environment. This economic growth,appears to rely on building,and selling,"new". Building new consumes resources,and it's unbelievably wasteful when you consider that the thing being replaced already exists. And in some cases,(like road transport),the Owner is forced to replace something, not because it no longer functions perfectly well, but because someone has decided that the new one will be better for the environment. No one ever considers the environmental cost of building the replacement: obtaining the raw materials to manufacture the,steel,rubber,etc,shipping them to the factory,the energy consumed by the factory,the environmental costs of all of the workers travel to make all this stuff and build the beast...no one seems to say,hold up,that's going to cause far more damage to the environment than the difference between letting that truck/fork lift/motorcycle/whatever continue to operate until it reaches it's proper end of life. Another strange claim:trains are held up to be some fantastically environmentally friendly form of transport. But... station car parks are full to bursting with cars,often new and very late models,that are used to transport passengers to the stations. In order to do that,the road network has to exist. So if the car has to exist,and the roads have to exist,for passengers to get to the railway station,where is the saving? Just the fuel they don't use going straight to work? On my regular route to work there is a level crossing,and on occasion I have to watch seven or eight trains pass before the gates open.(My personal record is twelve trains in 24 minutes...).In the morning,southbound trains are absolutely packed. Northbound,barely a soul on board.In the evening,it's the reverse. So when the figures are trotted out about so many this that and the other on the train,I ask myself,do they take into account the fact that that 2-tonnes-per-metre train spends half it's working life taking virtually nobody,nowhere? and do the figures take into account the cost of maintenance,the fuel used/distance travelled to the station by passengers and railway maintenance people,and the materials/factories where trains/rails/etc are built repaired?. These are some of the reasons I am cynical about politicians claims regarding mans effect on the Climate. There are many things Governments could do if they were serious about saving the planet. The fact of the matter is,they don't. They could,for instance,(bearing in mind the claim that Climate change is the biggest danger to the planet since yadda-yadda-yadda-rhubarb-rhubarb...),insist that publicly funded physics professors and Universities concentrate on investigating alternative fuels,more efficient batteries,etc,etc,etc. But they don't...it's ok for publicly funded hot air to be spouted about ancient Greece or Rome,or sports psychology,or any old tosh,while the planet apparently burns up. To fly so-called athletes halfway across the world in first class to take place is some meaningless sports event that cost the taxpayer billions,(that could be spent on genuine,factual,unbiased environmental research. There are millions of other examples of where Governments could show real concern for the environment,but they don't. Very reassuring. I apologise if I don't use someone elses unproven scientific data,or computer guesswork,or other estimates or predictions,in order to form my opinion. I can't help it,I'm a realist,I look at what my brain tells me is in front of me,and when I talk to others around me,I find the majority are as puzzled as I am. IF Governments really want to do something,they have to limit or deter the unnecessary consumption of goods,raw materials,and fossil fuels. Slowing down population growth would help:higher taxes on new products,ditto imported goods. And the already mentioned cap on the amount of fossil fuel each of us uses,though how that would work when many plastics/medicines and fertilizers are oil derivatives I don't know.
Under our current economic model I think the answer to this question is Yes, we are borrowing against the future and relying upon growth (and inflation) to justify that borrowing. I don't think this is sustainable.
You're the only bloke on here who is as verbose as I am! Interesting post and there is some stuff to say about it: The growth thing is really tricky. Of course, as you point out, it is a complete waste of time to replace perfectly decent goods with more recent goods. You say no one ever thinks of this, but you aren't entirely correct, because I do. My 15 year old Alfa isn't the best on fuel, but I am well aware that replacing it would be environmental madness for exactly the reasons you mention. And currently, there isn't anything wrong with it. It has done 217'000 kms, and I don't see why it shouldn't do 300'000. I hope it does. Why would I want to spend more of my limited resources on another car when I already have a perfectly good one? I don't want to change my house just because I've lived in it for 12 years. But there are two trends that pose a problem. One is globalisation, the other mechanisation. Mechanisation replaces people and renders them superfluous to requirements in the job market. Globalisation takes people who were hitherto grubbing around on a piece of dirt and gets them to do the jobs that we were doing. The only way to combat systemic unemployment, especially in the richer countries, is to produce and consumer more and more stuff. Is it sustainable? Of course not. But I'm still hoping to hear about the golden bullet that will make everything OK. It's very depressing. The traffic thing is a bit different. It is better that people drive 5 miles to get to a train station and then take the train than it is for them to drive the 50 miles into town. Imagine the traffic jams and the wasted time! And where would you park all the cars in the centre of town? It would be a nightmare. Naturally the trains run somewhat empty in the opposite direction. The only way to avoid that would be to have just as many job opportunities where the commuters were coming from, in which case they wouldn't have to commute at all. Doh! Or you could have a monster train park in town, waiting to take them home - which doesn't seem very practicable or sensible. And why don't governments do more about the environment? The answer is pretty obvious. It's not a vote winner. No one cares. The Green Party, who probably would, have one MP. That is the extent of people's interest in the subject. Let's face it, you wouldn't vote for anyone with a green agenda as you don't think it's necessary. Nor would @johnv. Nor would most people. Maybe one day people will care, but right now, they don't. You could re-channel resources from over-consumption into projects that made more environmental sense, such as silent electric buses, for example. But that would mean more taxation and no one is prepared to put up with that. The electorate has the government it voted for and presumably the government it wants. There were other options.
Of course it is ,in the context of money. But is economic growth necessary for the worlds welfare? Is the current economic model to blame,and if so,is it time to start looking for another way? I appreciate that this kind of thinking is a very big ask indeed,but regardless of climate change,I can't see the world continuing for very long if we continue the way we are going. Inflation prior to 1938 was not the big deal it is now,according to this paper anyway. "Prices roughly doubled between 1750 and the end of the 18th century, but were at about the same level over 100 years later, prior to the start of the First World War. The fluctuations prior to 1914 partly reflect harvest quality and wars, with European Wars having the most marked impact on UK inflation. Prices increased by 50 per cent over the first ten years of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), and doubled over the four years of the First World War and two succeeding years. Prices fell in most Figure 1 Composite Price Index: annual percentage change: 1751 to 2003 Per cent years between 1921 and 1936, or showed very small year-onyear increases of less than one per cent, reflecting the falls in profits and wage costs associated with rising unemployment during the Depression. Prices have risen in every year since. Taken as a whole, in the period between 1750 and 1938, before the start of the Second World War, prices rose by a little more than three times. Since then prices have increased more than forty-fold. The most rapid increases in prices occurred in the early years of the Second World War, and more particularly between 1973 and 1981. Over this latter eight-year period, prices more than tripled, with inflation reaching 24 per cent in 1975, and exceeding 10 per cent in each year except 1978. The situation in Britain reflected the experience of the entire industrial world, which was struck by a series of supply shocks during the 1970s, including a quadrupling in the world price of crude oil in 1973. Internationally, the effect of these supply shocks was most evident in 1974 when consumer price inflation exceeded 10 per cent in the US, Italy, France and Japan, while German inflation peaked at 7 per cent. In the UK, in the ten years from 1982 to 1991, inflation was above 4 per cent in most years, but has been below that in every year since".
I'm not an economist. But it seems to me that inflation is irrelevant. What counts is your standard of living which has risen massively over the periods you have quoted, as has life expectancy. What mathematical numbers you put on it are precisely that: numbers. Is it important? Only an economist could tell you and would you believe them anyway? Why should you? Economists equate growth with well-being, but as we all know, that isn't the case. I quite like Bhutan's "Happiness Index".
I don't think growth is necessary for the worlds welfare but how do you get from where we are to that place ? Maybe that element within us that has driven the human race to it's current pinnacle will drive us on to it's destruction ? Here is what JM Keynes, the often misquoted darling of the left , has to say about inflation By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.
