Or rather it's a case of "Just stop eating cake"..... "now, where's my next slice... Yummy".Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Or rather it's a case of "Just stop eating cake"..... "now, where's my next slice... Yummy".
Am Yisrael Chai
I haven't read Damian's book, but is he (or anyone else) saying that the poor shouldn't be allowed to raise themselves to a decent standard of living? Surely the point is that we, the relatively rich who have produced most of the pollution, should be cutting down on our burning of fossil fuels. "Just stop oil" may be a fairly stupid slogan, but there is plenty more we could do with existing technologies to reduce our impact, e.g. better transport policies as found in many European countries. And Konstantin Kisin's point about UK's greenhouse gas emissions being only 2% of the world's, so any reductions here would have no impact, is complete b****cks: every country except USA and China could point to a similarly small percentage, so then no-one bothers to do anything!
Incidentally, regarding Mike T's point about carbon footprint and carbon shadow, I have to confess that although I have made some efforts to reduce my footprint, my shadow remains vanishingly small: I can't even get the rest of my family to stop using cars for short journeys around town!
In his lifetime he suffered from unreality, as do so many Englishmen.
Jorge Luis Borges
The only way those in the developing world can increase their standard of living is to use large amounts of cheap fuel, and until we come up with a green source that is cheaper they will use coal, oil and gas to do it. As the people of China and India (and other large countries too) become richer and richer they will consume ever increasing amounts of energy, causing the UK's already small percentage of total emissions to dwindle.
Making products such as steel and cement use massive amounts of energy. If UK industries like these operated only using green power their production costs would make their products too expensive to buy. The result would be the products would be made in the developing world, using coal, and then shipped to us with further emissions.
If the 'experts' telling us to "Just stop oil" really wanted to show their 'expertise', they would be working on nuclear fusion and other forms of cheap, green, energy production, rather than waving banners and glueing themselves to motorways
I am surprised the 2% - or often 1% - fallacy is still being repeated. Everybody can put themselves in a 1% group - by definition there will be 100 in the world - and say that their contribution to climate change is close to zero and therefore they do not need to do anything.
As to the developing nations using fossil fuel, isn't one of the major agreements of the recent COPs that we help them to the tune of $100 billion per year so that they can to an extent bypass fossil fuel usage and go straight to renewables. A lot of those saying we need to let them use fossil fuels as that is how we became rich actually mean "don't limit them as that would mean limiting me".
From Damian's book: A lot of cynicism is actually apathy dressed up as wisdom.
Most developing countries are pragmatic enough (they have had to be to survive) to realise that so-called renewables are expensive, ineffectual distractions, for those who see the world as they would like it to be, rather than the reality most are forced to live in. If wind/solar weren't expensive and ineffective, developing countries would buy them up in droves.
The thought of Western countries paying vast $$$ to leaders of developing countries (some of whom are despotic or have dodgy democratic regimes)to suppress their populations benefiting from cheap energy is worrying, as it appears to represents a form of neo-colonialism. Do as we say and not as we do - and continue to do. And afterall, we're repeatedly being told how colonialism is bad (Am I detecting another Hall-like hypocrisy here?).
Damian's book appears to have a lot of get-out-of-jail-free quotes. "I'm a hypocrite, but hypocrisy is good cos it brings issues to the forefront"; "A lot of cynicism is actually apathy dressed up as wisdom", we can translate as "people who don't agree with me are lazy thinkers, so don't listen to them". It smacks of school-yard philosophy and suggests he really hasn't thought very deeply about the issues and strategies he claims to represent.
It would have been interesting to observe how he would have reacted if his journey to the race had been blocked by 'peaceful' protesters, as many tens of thousands of people were blocked from going about their lives (jobs/hospital/flights/etc.) by his group; or if he had been delayed on route to Kirk Yetholm for several hours by other peaceful protesters. The Spine doesn't get a whole lot of coverage in the national press, just a few columns. He, of course, could have made a quite a news splash if he'd stopped, metres short of the finish line, thrown the race, waving his banners; or had run it in the opposite direction on his own - now that would have made the headlines ah, albeit at a real cost to himself! Action not empty words
Last edited by Mossdog; 22-01-2023 at 04:29 PM.
Am Yisrael Chai
I seem to remember another thread where we agree that sportsmen and -women these days are all so bland, because there's load of people ready to take a pop at them if they express an opinion.He, of course, could have made a quite a news splash if he'd stopped, metres short of the finish line, thrown the race, waving his banners; or had run it in the opposite direction on his own - now that would have made the headlines ah, albeit at a real cost to himself! Action not empty words
It must be hard trying to make a positive impact when it's greeted with this type of negativity.
The developing world will always use the cheapest form of fuel they can, just like we do, because that is what countries and companies do. It's called economics.
I don't think that's a fair comment Noel, and I certainly don't agree that he's trying to make a positive impact - quite the reverse.
If someone (and particularly a sports personality) stands up to publicly make a bold rather furious moralising statement, that has dire implications for poorer people, and it's one I or anyone else believes is fundamentally wrong, I think there's a justifiable right to challenge it. Don't you agree?
That's far from being negative. Indeed, we need a sensible debate about these issues, and certainly we need to challenge those who make a simplistic pious argument that people should behave negatively and 'stop', 'desist', 'reduce' , 'renounce', doing something or living their lives in a certain way, particularly when the pronouncing 'puritans' evidently fail to follow their very own dictates.
So, I look forward to next year's Spine, which hopefully will focus on running and not be co-opted by anyone to make some personal, political/moralising gain.
Am Yisrael Chai
They won't use the cheapest fuel available if we pay them enough not to. Whether $100 billion a year is enough is another matter.
Not at all.
One just has to be able to back up one's statements of piety from the pulpit with integrity.
"...as dry as the Atacama desert".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote