An American view of Global Warming

Can't we just stick to the Catholic Church? They're used to getting blamed for stuff these days.

 

I'll go with the Catholic church too. Not because I feel that they are any more guilty than anyone else, but when I was a kid and I went to a school that was mostly (though not officially) strict Catholic, the teachers were nasty.

Truth is, I don't reckon we need to do anything. Nature will sort us out. Things change, nature changes, species come and go, and while I doubt the human race will become extinct any time soon, we'll certainly see our numbers reduce a bit as nature decides we're getting too big for our boots and feels it necessary to remind us who the gaffer is.

The big useless dinosaurs thought they had it all. Stomping about all over the place and eating whatever they liked, as though they owned the place. Nature soon took them down a peg or two.

 

If we go back far enough in time I am certain we could locate some suspicious looking germ swimming in a primordial pool of mineral rich goo to pin this global warming stuff on-that would let us all off the hook.


I have to mention here that it isn't only the catholic church who preaches that contraception is inherently sacriligious.

 

Nope, just people in general

 

That's my point precisely Pete, sorry, maybe I didn't express it too well.


Looking back over this thread I read lots of comments about how we are better informed in the UK, it's this person fault, it's that sector of society to blame, we can do very little here in this country, let's pin it on that bunch, if such and such hadn't have happened then this and that woldn't have. I know a lot of it was tongue in cheek, it just highlighted what I personally believe to be the crux of the problem, a very human desire to shift blame.

The fact is, that we can only do our very best with what we are given. I can't blame someone with 8 kids should I not re-use plastic carrier bags, it isn't Pope Benedicts fault if I make an unnecessary trip in my car, it isn't China's fault that I use bleach. It is my own fault, but I can rationalise it by passing the buck-it's only one bag, it's only a quick trip, it's only a handful of paper I throw in the wheelie bin etc etc etc-other people do far worse things.


Of course the governments are using it tax us to oblivion, of course the utility companies are using it as an excuse to introduce enormous rises in fuel prices, of course it is being marketed by failing car firms to kickstart their industry ( hybrid cars and the like), supermarkets have a vast array of different sized brightly coloured shopping bags for us to buy, yet they still hand out carrier bags like toffee at the checkout ( duh?), they are providing us with a way to "purchase" absolution-and people are buying.

So I agree, everyone is personally responsible for what they personally do, there is no such thing as guilt by comparison.

 

Agree with lollipop

We are all good at saying what 'other people' should do.

In the end we can't control anyone's behaviour but our own. It is the only behaviour we are totally responsible for. Other people's behaviour may or may not change because of ours but we choose to do what we do because of who WE are and how WE think and what WE believe; not what anyone else does, thinks or believes.

Oh - and stopping people having more than one child whilst there are more and more elderly and or infirm people will - in the end - be counter productive. It has already been predicted there will be insufficient people willing and able to care for those who need it in the not too distant future. The sooner we bring in the choice about 'right to die' the more likely it is that it will be at least reasonably safeguarded cos if we leave it too long it will become an economic necessity.

 

I know this is lsightly off topic but what you just said is relevant to a conversation I had only last night about this. A relative of mine works for one of those Homecare organisations, and it is already happening. They go through staff like toilet paper and treat them pretty much the same way. She has no time to spare to sit and chat with those she visits-her visits are allocated a set amount of time depending on what her tasks at that address are and if she goes over that time she eats into the next appointment and the next and so on and so on. She will be leaving after Christmas because she can't take it anymore it is breaking her heart she says.

Sorry for going off topic a bit there.

 

Very well put Lollipop.

But, my fear is that the efforts of individuals are futile without the backing of governments and corporations. You are right in that we can only do our best, but we can only do our best within the confines of what we are able to do.

Let me give you an example. My journey to and from work is a mere 4 miles round trip. Yet I take my car. Why? For a period I used to walk it, but it means walking through a patch of town where violent crime is an almost daily (literally) occurrence. I once walked past a restaurant where chairs and plates were being thrown in a huge riot. I saw a bloke storm into a shop with a badly concealed knife hanging out of his sleave, and on one occassion I had to square up to somebody who mistook me for someone he'd done time with in Doncaster jail. So walking it is not fun. I could get the bus, the one that half the time doesn't bother to turn up at all or when it does it is very late and often goes straight past because it is full. I could cycle in, except that there are loads of badly parked cars in the cycle lanes so cyclists are forced to take their chances in rush hour traffic. A few lads here have tried it, and literally 100% of those that have, have been knocked off their bikes at least once. So I take the car, where I am safe and will be on time.

The government will boast about the miles of cycle lanes they've put in, but they wont mention that most of them are nothing more than lines of paint on very busy roads, which are parked in by any number of cars, vans, delivery lorries etc and thus unusable anyway.

That's just one example of many, where the well intentioned are held back. I don't want to pass the book, I know we all have a responsibility, but if we really are constrained, then the book should be passed at least to some extent.

 

Absolutely. On a global scale, it feels pretty futile to be reducing, recycling, reusing, when 3rd World countries are striving for the same material comforts the 1st World benefits from...and building those power stations, roads, cars, televisions, etc, etc. We can;t turn round to them and tell them not to aspire to them.

 

As for transport, my journey to work is 20 minutes by motorbike or car. If I were to take public transport, double or even treble that. For a 13 mile journey. As for getting into town here, it's a 20 minute walk or a five minute drive. The buses are expensive (£2.00 one way for a 5 minute journey) and hardly frequent (one an hour). Until massive (and I mean massive) investment is poured into public transport so it's efficient, clean and reliable you aren't going to get people out of their cars, no matter how high the tax rises on fuel, road tax and insurance.

Another point - the days of people living, going to school and socialising in a 10/15 minute walk or drive radius are gone, unfortunately. I would love a job where I could walk there each morning but it's extremely unlikely.

 

"Another point - the days of people living, going to school and socialising in a 10/15 minute walk or drive radius are gone, unfortunately. I would love a job where I could walk there each morning but it's extremely unlikely". This is the worst element of all. There is another way to solve it, that of making it even more epxensive and even more inconvenient to go by car by the mass closure of roads.



You are of course quite correct, it is now perceived as being dangerous to walk on the streets, so as a consequence fewer people choose walking over driving to a destination (bone idleness is a factor as well, I have a family member who drives the 200 yds to her Mother in Laws house would you believe it). Empty streets encourage crime by virtue of being empty, and the more crime committed on them the emptier still they become. I am in full agreement that bike lanes do nothing, I don't see more bikes, I see more cars.

As a society develops, the citizens within it become more distant from one another physically. I know more about the people on this forum than I do about the people living on my street, and as much as I enjoy talking with you all, that is really sad. Human beings seek to form communities by our very nature, and it is clear to me that when people living in the same geographical area start to physically distance themselves from one another, for whatever reason, all sorts of problems begin to rear their ugly head.

I actually think that less roads would help, not more of them. Pedestrianising residential areas, sort of like creating islands within the sea of roads we have, would force us all back onto the streets, redressing the imbalance we have on the streets. Yes there will always be criminals, yes there will always be idiots, but if we are all on the streets together then those groups are forced back into being the minority they always have been, despite how much the media would have us believe it is any other way.


We can get to know the neighbours again, meet one another, learn to care for them even. It would help with other issues too. Care for the elderly, if someone sees a child they know with someone they know they shouldn't be with then they can always call hello to the child, etc etc


At least that's what I am thinking.

Governments and corporations are made up of individuals. If we are all satellites to one another, rarely touching, rarely meeting, then that that lack of consideration is simply mu;ltiplied and all too apparent.

 

Again I agree with Lollipop.

When I was a kid, all the neighbours knew each other well. As kids I would frequently get palmed off on my mate's mum next door but one while my mum went shop, and vice versa. One day when our coal fire set the whole chimney on fire and we had to leg it, my sisters and I were posted next door while my parents dealt with the fire brigade. The old man across the road used to regularly invite us in for a chat, and would give us pocket money and sweets and would tell us tales of his war days. The old man down the road used to pop in for a cuppa, usually without knocking because everyone's door was unlocked if they were in and everyone knew each other well.

That sort of community meant that crime was low, because if someone stepped out of line, the whole street would be on to them. It also meant that little got wasted because, for example, one kids old clothes would go to a smaller kid in the same street. I remember my dad decorating several rooms of our house with left over paint from when a neighbour had done theirs.

When I was a kid, if you were going to be naughty, you didn't just avoid being witnessed by your own parents, you had to avoid being witnessed by anyone because word would just get round and you'd get done. It was simpler to just behave.

Can you imagine that sort of setup nowadays? Kids going into the old man's house to listen to tales of war and receive sweets and money, thank god that poor old bloke has long since passed away, he's well out of it. Nowadays he'd been branded a peadophile even though he did absolutely nothing wrong, and actually tried to educate the kids not to make the mistakes that another generation made in a bygone era.

Where it has all gone wrong, in my opinion, is not that people have just changed. It is that we have been brainwashed by those powerful folks whose goal is to make as much money as possible without any morals. I remember our street having a couple of street parties. They were organised by the residents. The tables and chairs were whatever people had in their houses, there will have been no public liability insurance. No food hygiene inspector came to check the spread that had been put on by ordinary mums in the street, and we all had a good time. Nowadays, solitors want the latest Bentley we are constantly told we can sue each other, and because of that the insurers who want their yachts tell us we will lose our souls unless we take out a range of insurance policies. The media who want to sell their doom tell us that because one person did something bad, everyone is therefore bad and we can't trust each oher and must continue buying their doom mongering if we wish to survive intact.

I could rant for ever on this, but I'm not going to

 

Personally I'm not that bothered what other people do, just as long as they all stop banging on about it, and trying to get me to change what I do.

As for the one child option, its not a case of stopping people from having more than one child, its more about stopping rewarding them for have more than one.

As to the fact that there are not enough younger people around to look after the ageing population, that may just be a fact.
But its been brought about by short sighted governments for years, running their budgets on the principle of, the more people, the more tax income.
Just imagine how bad things will be in another 50 years then, when this young population is old.

You cant keep reproducing, in order to get out of these problems, it wont work.

Until a total rethink of approach is taken, world wide, nothing will get better, only worse.
And I doubt that will happen with out a large jolt from nature.

I must admit, we should have the right to die, when the time comes.
Doctors and the law should not be allowed to play god.

 

I agree with almost everything Pete said.

However I don't mind making making changes if they were to help. But as long as the population continues to explode - what is the point?

I think there is a falacy about needing more young people to look after the old. We have about 5 million people or more, capable of work, but not working. Perhaps some of them could help.

And perhaps some of the elderly could look after other elderly people. A friend of mine had a great aunt who, at over 90, was taking meals on wheels round to the 70 year olds. :D

And actually Hec I think we can control other people's behaviour. Its called incentives and is a job for central government. The whole capitalistic system is based on incentives. The major problem with incentives is that they work too well. Give a banker an incentive to earn huge sums by taking irresponsible risks and they will do it. Give people the right incentive to limit population growth and they will do it.