PowerSwitch

The latest document from the MoD, Strategic Trends Programme - Global Strategic Trends - Out to 2045, mentions climate 151 times.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _v1_2w.pdf

It's going to be tricky for certain government ministers to maintain their denial.

Insignificant. A tiny island, barely a fifth of the population of the only country that could make a real difference.

That's Ireland you're talking about?

Could be!

Meanwhile, in a similar vein:

Prakash Javadekar, the Environment Minister, said India had a “right to grow” and that it could not address climate change until it had eradicated poverty.

So now you know why nations will never address climate change.

Source

So we had better help them eradicate poverty pdq.

biffvernon wrote:So we had better help them eradicate poverty pdq.

Why just them?

Not just Indians, anybody who is too poor.

emordnilap wrote:Insignificant. A tiny island, barely a fifth of the population of the only country that could make a real difference.

So you agree that what the USA chooses to do is what will determine the future for all of us?

Or China. And they seem to be "waking up", what with that "5 year plan" with lots of renewables in and the like.

Mind you, it took an American to point out the thing that China should really be looking after: its soil.

biffvernon wrote:So we had better help them eradicate poverty pdq.

Oh yes, and while we're at it we can "help them" to achieve global peace and convince the entire world population to take up vegetarianism.

Get f***ing real for once in your life, Biff Vernon. This sort of idealistic poppycock helps NOBODY and achieves NOTHING. All it does is make Biff Vernon feel smug and superior, and tries to paint anybody who is a realist as being heartless.

DEAL WITH REALITY OR IT WILL DEAL WITH YOU.

vtsnowedin wrote:

emordnilap wrote:Insignificant. A tiny island, barely a fifth of the population of the only country that could make a real difference.

So you agree that what the USA chooses to do is what will determine the future for all of us?

I don't. Or at least, even if the US decided to try to lead the world (instead of dragging it backwards), the only difference would be one of timing, rather than changing the ultimate destiny of civilisation as we know it.

emordnilap wrote:Could be!

Meanwhile, in a similar vein:

Prakash Javadekar, the Environment Minister, said India had a “right to grow” and that it could not address climate change until it had eradicated poverty.

So now you know why nations will never address climate change.

Source

Exactly.

India was the world’s fastest growing carbon gas emitter in 2012, but has rejected calls to reduce emissions as unfair. Ministers say western economies were to blame for polluting the atmosphere during their industrialisation and that India’s own development cannot be held back to meet new targets.

Exactly. The only "fair" solution would be for the western countries to voluntarily de-industrialise, and that's absolutely not going to happen.

Biff Vernon, you should take note of what Emordnilap actually wrote, and not what you wanted to read. He did not say "this is why we need to help them eradicate poverty", because he's not a weepy-eyed dreamer and knows that this simply isn't possible. He said "This is why nations will never [seriously] address climate change." It is why climate change will never rise to the top of their agenda. Did you see that word "never"? Well, guess what! It means NEVER. It does not mean The Never Land.

And before you complain that I'm being nasty to you again, perhaps you ought to consider why you have drawn this reaction from me, yet again. It's not because I'm a heartless bastard, or because I take some sort of twisted pleasure from being nasty to you. It's because your reaction is PART OF THE PROBLEM. You are making yourself feel better by posturing with empty moral superiority, achieving nothing positive whatsoever and undermining the realists who want to deal with reality instead of dealing in fantasies.

Just in case you still don't understand this, I am going to explain it again:

We (humanity and civilisation) have a whole bunch of very serious and deeply inter-related problems to deal with, climate change probably being the worst of the lot. Those problems have very complicated causes which render most of them unsolvable. Not "very hard to solve" but UNSOLVABLE, as in THERE ARE NO SOLUTIONS. We can only solve problems which have a solution which doesn't interfere with the prevailing systemic situation - so we can replace CFCs with something less harmful, but we can't stop using something which does what CFCs do. We are not, no matter how hard we try, going to stop screwing up the climate, nor are we going to find solutions to any of the other problems which fall into the category of "tragedy of the commons" (look it up if you don't know what it means). And we are not going to "eradicate global poverty" - not just not pdq but not at all. "Poverty" is part of the way nature deals with the overpopulation problem which is another example of a real problem that people like you won't face up to. Now...if you accept this REALITY then it doesn't mean you have to put your head in a bag and give up the will to live. It does mean there are still decisions to made. TOUGH DECISIONS based on reality instead of fantasy. What you are doing is avoiding facing up to those tough decisions while attempting to portray yourself as morally superior to those who are not avoiding this. And as one of those people who chooses to deal with reality instead of prancing about pretending to be morally superior while dealing in fantasies, I have every right to call you out for what you are, every time you do it.

Avoiding those tough decisions does not make the world a better place. All it does is allow people whose motives are a lot darker than your own to go on merrily avoiding even talking about the real issues, which suits them just fine. And it's not just you (obviously). It's most of the environmental movement. At the moment the environmental movement is a JOKE. The only people dealing with reality are people like Derrick Jensen and Paul Kingsnorth. Oh, and Nick Griffin.

I have only flicked through the document so far, but page 33 is pretty scary.

Global sea-levels are likely to rise by between
0.32–0.38 metres by 2050, although larger
increases cannot be ruled out.

Abrupt events (or tipping points) such as the failure of the Indian monsoon, changes in large-scale ocean circulation (for example a
weakening of the Gulf-stream), substantial melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the release of large quantities of methane.....

Catweazle wrote:I have only flicked through the document so far, but page 33 is pretty scary.

Global sea-levels are likely to rise by between
0.32–0.38 metres by 2050, although larger
increases cannot be ruled out.

Abrupt events (or tipping points) such as the failure of the Indian monsoon, changes in large-scale ocean circulation (for example a
weakening of the Gulf-stream), substantial melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the release of large quantities of methane.....

Well I wouldn't think a foot over thirty years would be all that alarming except to a few Pacific islanders. It's that cravat that things might just might proceed much faster at some point that is worrisome.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

biffvernon wrote:So we had better help them eradicate poverty pdq.

Oh yes, and while we're at it we can "help them" to achieve global peace and convince the entire world population to take up vegetarianism.

Get ******* real for once in your life, Biff Vernon. This sort of idealistic poppycock helps NOBODY and achieves NOTHING. All it does is make Biff Vernon feel smug and superior, and tries to paint anybody who is a realist as being heartless.

DEAL WITH REALITY OR IT WILL DEAL WITH YOU.

Why do you have to be so rude? I happen to think that helping eradicate poverty is something we should all try to engage with. Global peace sounds like a a goal worth aiming for. As for vegetarianism, well, each to his own and no doubt eating less meat would help solve some problems. I'm not a vegetarian and don't ask anybody else to be. On the spectrum of average US consumption of 120kg/year to India's 5kg/yr I'm a lot closer to India's position but there is certainly a role for some meat production within the permacultural regime of some types of farmland.

If you've a problem with that please use rational argument rather than asterisks and shouting.