Earth Hour: Your opinion of the concept?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 10, 2009
91
0
0
Earth hour - at best it could increase awareness of the problem including the need for community rather than just government action. At worst its just greenwash.

The problem we have in Australia (probably the same in the U.S.) is that large parts of the population become opposed to doing anything about preventing climate change as soon as they realise that meaningful action will cost them $. Of course doing nothing is going to cost a lot more down the track but that's for future generations to contend with.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
BroDeal said:
The largest problem the world has today is not global warming or energy use. It is out of control population growth.

The best way to combat population growth is to raise people out of poverty.
For example in Italy birth rates have fallen so far there causing a population decline and tax incentives are being given to encourage couples to have more kids. This is a situation arising in several developed nations.
Health , wealth and education cause people to have smaller families because they can be more confident there ofspring will survive into adulthood.
On a personal note: My grandmother came from refuge "potato famine" family in abject poverty...one of 12. Im one of 6...we were pretty skint as a family.....I have two kids and never wanted more, my youngest is about to go to University.
Current global population is almost 7 billion...estimates of Earths abilty to suport 11 billion are based on utilising sustainable methods and ending the waist that is the War Machine.
We can choose as a species to be inteligent in our responce and see all people as intrinsicly of value or we can carry on the charade of believing disparate people are somehow differant.
There NOT....theres more genetic diversity in a single troup of Chimps than the entire human race.
We are indeed each others brothers and sisters.
 
Sep 27, 2009
1,008
0
0
A complete and utter total waste of time. And I like hot weather anyway so let the world warm up for all I care.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
The best way to combat population growth is to raise people out of poverty.
For example in Italy birth rates have fallen so far there causing a population decline and tax incentives are being given to encourage couples to have more kids. This is a situation arising in several developed nations.
Health , wealth and education cause people to have smaller families because they can be more confident there ofspring will survive into adulthood.
On a personal note: My grandmother came from refuge "potato famine" family in abject poverty...one of 12. Im one of 6...we were pretty skint as a family.....I have two kids and never wanted more, my youngest is about to go to University.
Current global population is almost 7 billion...estimates of Earths abilty to suport 11 billion are based on utilising sustainable methods and ending the waist that is the War Machine.
We can choose as a species to be inteligent in our responce and see all people as intrinsicly of value or we can carry on the charade of believing disparate people are somehow differant.
There NOT....theres more genetic diversity in a single troup of Chimps than the entire human race.
We are indeed each others brothers and sisters.
...bang on...history shows us that that the more developed a culture the lower the birth rate...in fact the most developed nations today have negative population growth...large families have traditionally been hedges against the future...define a future that ensures long term individual survival and the need for large famillies disappears...

Cheers

blutto
 
BroDeal said:
Term has a point. Check out the population projections for Nigeria then ask yourself if that makes sense for a country that has an economy based on finding westerner's long lost family fortunes which can be unlocked for a small bank transfer.

The largest problem the world has today is not global warming or energy use. It is out of control population growth.
I am not sure that I agree with you on this one. I'd say that the largest problem the world is facing today is the fact that people are over consuming and that they aren't recycling enough. If every man and woman consumed as much as the average Nigerians it would take something like 0.2-0.4 globes to feed the 7 000 000 000 people living on this planet. However, in the long run I believe you are absolutely correct. Someone said that the earth is capable of supporting 11 billion people but I can't see that happening without healily damageing the planet. Let's face it, people aren't going to cut back on their consumption that much.
 
Mar 13, 2009
1,064
0
0
BroDeal said:
Term has a point. Check out the population projections for Nigeria then ask yourself if that makes sense for a country that has an economy based on finding westerner's long lost family fortunes which can be unlocked for a small bank transfer.

The largest problem the world has today is not global warming or energy use. It is out of control population growth.
Uganda is scarier than Nigeria, the population is projected to quadruple (139 million) by 2050. Just imagine the population density of Uganda which is smaller in area than Michigan.

I was reading a book at a kid in Malawi who built his own windmill to power his family's home. For him and his family it was the first time they could stay up past nightfall. And when nighttime comes, people can only guess what goes down in the bedroom...

There is research proving that bringing electricity to societies will actually decrease birthrates, so these two seemingly unrelated variables are correlated
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
slartiblartfast said:
Earth hour - at best it could increase awareness of the problem including the need for community rather than just government action. At worst its just greenwash.

The problem we have in Australia (probably the same in the U.S.) is that large parts of the population become opposed to doing anything about preventing climate change as soon as they realise that meaningful action will cost them $. Of course doing nothing is going to cost a lot more down the track but that's for future generations to contend with.
...the payback for smarter development has actually proved faster than most people realize...the example of trading off the cost of new efficient appliances against the building of new nukes proved itself here in a decade...and this doesn't even take into account the future energy savings from those appliances or the huge cost of decommissioning nukes ( which if done properly will cost more than the initial building phase )....

...and its not like societies don't as a matter course build and enjoy projects that have long term benefits/payback...think roads, bridges, large buildings, clearing of land for farming...it isn't all fast food, disposables and immediate gratification, though if that is the prism thru which you view/live your life maybe
maybe extinction is the fitting end ( since you haven't shown the intelligence to deal successfully with the future and nature abhors stupidity )...don't put in enough firewood for a cold winter and you freeze to death, problem over, and nature rolls on..

Cheers

blutto
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
El Pistolero said:
I honestly don't care for future generations because in the end humanity will die anyway, something tells me it's better sooner than later. That said, I do support the financing of renewable energy to replace fossil fuel. For other reasons than environment though, that's just an added bonus in my eyes.
...I honestly don't care for future generations????!!!!....well I may not be an evolutionary biologist, but I do know that species survival is the prime directive for every species that has an IQ of at least 0.00000001....so the only conclusion I can draw from your statement is that you are, in the most basic primordial sense, as dumb as a rock, and have an empathy quotient that can only be measured using negative numbers....( which I suppose, given that you are likely a disciple of Ayn Rand, is probably the highest form of praise you could hope for...)

...but its not all bad, because your statement has put you in the lead for a very hotly contested competition in these parts....I would like to take this opportunity to nominate you for an award....because in my ever so humble opinion your post is absolutely the stupidest statement that has ever been posted on this forum...as far as I'm concerned its now not even a close race for that prize...to put it into cycling terms, you have done the equivalent of winning TDF by about 150 hrs....and how could anyone top that...

...bravo...now that are a winner, why don't you run off and shine your precious baubles...

Cheers

blutto

PS...sorry about contravening the moritorium on spirited discussion but I simply could not let this go without an appropriate response...
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
nvpacchi said:
Uganda is scarier than Nigeria, the population is projected to quadruple (139 million) by 2050. Just imagine the population density of Uganda which is smaller in area than Michigan.

I was reading a book at a kid in Malawi who built his own windmill to power his family's home. For him and his family it was the first time they could stay up past nightfall. And when nighttime comes, people can only guess what goes down in the bedroom...

There is research proving that bringing electricity to societies will actually decrease birthrates, so these two seemingly unrelated variables are correlated
....and conversely when the electricity goes out birth-rates go up...longish and long power outages (that last at least over one night) in modern societies always produce a higher birth-rate nine months after the fact....despite the fact that those societies are predisposed to low birth-rates...

Cheers

blutto
 
Darryl Webster said:
The best way to combat population growth is to raise people out of poverty.
How do you propose to do that? I am pessimistic and suspect that some of these countries are past the point of no return.

Walkman said:
I am not sure that I agree with you on this one. I'd say that the largest problem the world is facing today is the fact that people are over consuming and that they aren't recycling enough. If every man and woman consumed as much as the average Nigerians it would take something like 0.2-0.4 globes to feed the 7 000 000 000 people living on this planet. However, in the long run I believe you are absolutely correct. Someone said that the earth is capable of supporting 11 billion people but I can't see that happening without healily damageing the planet. Let's face it, people aren't going to cut back on their consumption that much.
Yup. You won't change human behavior. People will not consume less unless forced. All that consumption of resources and energy, especially energy, is what gives us our standard of living. Using less is living worse. How would someone tell a country's citizens that their standard of living will be cut in half to raise the standard of living on another continent?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
BroDeal said:
How do you propose to do that? I am pessimistic and suspect that some of these countries are past the point of no return.



Yup. You won't change human behavior. People will not consume less unless forced. All that consumption of resources and energy, especially energy, is what gives us our standard of living. Using less is living worse. How would someone tell a country's citizens that their standard of living will be cut in half to raise the standard of living on another continent?
...Using less is living worse????????!!!!!!!!....well I guess it depends how you define worse doesn't it....and given our current path as a society worse in 50 years is going require a pretty radical re-definition of how bad worse could possibly be...

...or put another way...was my life 50 years ago worse because I had less ( and we all most certainly had less )?....well not really...in fact that less life had a considerable charm ( even when taking in account there is bit of the rose-tinned glasses thing colouring my recollections )....and current studies of happiness( and coincidently, health ) support the contention that more stuff does not equal more happiness....quality of life seems to be the key, not shiny baubles...

...sorry to rain on your parade but please be forewarned its heading in the wrong direction and there is a steep cliff directly in your path....might be a good time to take off the blinders...or alternatively, could I interest you in a ticket on the B Ark...its leaving soon and it promises to be a wonderful trip...if fact you are tailor perfect for that trip...in fact your comments underline that fact...

Cheers

blutto
 
blutto said:
...Using less is living worse????????!!!!!!!!....well I guess it depends how you define worse doesn't it....and given our current path as a society worse in 50 years is going require a pretty radical re-definition of how bad worse could possibly be...

...or put another way...was my life 50 years ago worse because I had less ( and we all most certainly had less )?....well not really...in fact that less life had a considerable charm ( even when taking in account there is bit of the rose-tinned glasses thing colouring my recollections )....and current studies of happiness( and coincidently, health ) support the contention that more stuff does not equal more happiness....quality of life seems to be the key, not shiny baubles...

...sorry to rain on your parade but please be forewarned its heading in the wrong direction and there is a steep cliff directly in your path....might be a good time to take off the blinders...or alternatively, could I interest you in a ticket on the B Ark...its leaving soon and it promises to be a wonderful trip...if fact you are tailor perfect for that trip...in fact your comments underline that fact...
It is not my fault that you are too stupid to figure out that human advancement is a story of ever increasing energy use. Everything we have today is the result of a massive amount of energy. Try building a highway with only human and animal labor. Try growing the amount of food we produce with an ox driven plow. Our cities were created with an amount of power that was impossible to produce a couple of centuries ago.

Maybe you will be happy living in a mud hut with no running water and scrounging for edible roots, but the rest of the first world likes all the conveniences that come from modern civilization.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
BroDeal said:
It is not my fault that you are too stupid to figure out that human advancement is a story of ever increasing energy use. Everything we have today is the result of a massive amount of energy. Try building a highway with only human and animal labor. Try growing the amount of food we produce with an ox driven plow. Our cities were created with an amount of power that was impossible to produce a couple of centuries ago.

Maybe you will be happy living in a mud hut with no running water and scrounging for edible roots, but the rest of the first world likes all the conveniences that come from modern civilization.
So the choice is this?... most of the world lives in struggle for basic living conditions while a minority squander the world resources and the ONLY choice is an alteranative were everyone returns to basic hunter/ gatherer?.
Might I whisper in your ear that there are several obvious steps that could eliminate global poverty. The global dismanteling of the Arms Industry alone could provide more than enough funding for a global drive to renewable and sustainable energy production . The closing of loop holes that allow the wealthy to escape paying much of the tax they otherwise ought to ( if of any moral consciounce) and thats has allowed a situation were an ever increasingly small % ( currently around 2%) own 80 % of the global wealth.
Before anyone shouts me down and tells me im living in cookoo land remember the altarnative is the destruction of ALL ours habitat.
For the convenience of a few trinckets sadly it apears some people see that as price worth paying.
There called fatalists.
 
Darryl Webster said:
So the choice is this?... most of the world lives in struggle for basic living conditions while a minority squander the world resources and the ONLY choice is an alteranative were everyone returns to basic hunter/ gatherer?.
Might I whisper in your ear that there are several obvious steps that could eliminate global poverty. The global dismanteling of the Arms Industry alone could provide more than enough funding for a global drive to renewable and sustainable energy production . The closing of loop holes that allow the wealthy to escape paying much of the tax they otherwise ought to ( if of any moral consciounce) and thats has allowed a situation were an ever increasingly small % ( currently around 2%) own 80 % of the global wealth.
Before anyone shouts me down and tells me im living in cookoo land remember the altarnative is the destruction of ALL ours habitat.
For the convenience of a few trinckets sadly it apears some people see that as price worth paying.
There called fatalists.
That arms industry will be needed when overpopulated countries start fighting over food and water. :)

If the first world did cut down their military spending, something I would like to see, the money would not be spent on the third world. It would be spent improving the over militarized countries, something I would also like to see. No politician is going to run for election by explaining to his constituents that their taxes need to be 30% higher so the money can be spent to improve other countries filled with people who cannot keep it in their pants.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
BroDeal said:
That arms industry will be needed when overpopulated countries start fighting over food and water. :)

If the first world did cut down their military spending, something I would like to see, the money would not be spent on the third world. It would be spent improving the over militarized countries, something I would also like to see. No politician is going to run for election by explaining to his constituents that their taxes need to be 30% higher so the money can be spent to improve other countries filled with people who cannot keep it in their pants.
My own great grandparents " couldnt keep it in there pants", my gran was one of 12. I have two kids. Is your assertion that somehow these people who cant keep it in there pants in countries you donts specify ( but might I assume there mainly rather poor and Black / South East Asian?) are somhow less capable of making better choices if conditions were better?.
Id hazard a guess that a huge % of eople on this forum dont have to go far back before there familes lines consisted of many more offspring than the 2.0 of much of developed societies.
It may seem counter intuitive to some but there the facts. Eliminate poverty you eliminate the population explosion.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
BroDeal said:
It is not my fault that you are too stupid to figure out that human advancement is a story of ever increasing energy use. Everything we have today is the result of a massive amount of energy. Try building a highway with only human and animal labor. Try growing the amount of food we produce with an ox driven plow. Our cities were created with an amount of power that was impossible to produce a couple of centuries ago.

Maybe you will be happy living in a mud hut with no running water and scrounging for edible roots, but the rest of the first world likes all the conveniences that come from modern civilization.
...first, when you are engaged with someone in a conversation or a debate its a good idea to actually listen to what the other party is saying...on the one hand it is the polite thing to do and shows you are a gentleman and on the other hand it allows one to develop an effective counter-argument... if you don't do that, you risk the possibility of appearing to be a boorish lout who is incapable of dealing meaningfully with others...and your counter argument has the good possibilty of becoming meaningless...

...second, I have no problem with the way you frame your assertion that the modern world is built to a great extent on the availability of amounts of energy that were not, until recently, available to mankind....and yes it would be stupid to say otherwise...but if you had actually taken the trouble to look at what I wrote, you will find I never said that...and as for the mud hut thing? gawd only knows where that came...

....but the problem with your argument, if you can call it that, is that it is hinged on this idea of ever increasing use of energy....and in a nutshell that is the problem....this planet does not have the resources to maintain that level of energy production by the means it is currently being produced...and to change direction to other means will require a huge infrastructure effort that we can as a society now afford( though barely)...but, and this is the important bit, if we wait any longer we will not have have that luxury...so in the worse case scenario we may in fact be soon living in mud huts...

...my point is that in the present circumstances we can change things so that we can retain the best parts of our present society into the future and not be doomed to live in those dreaded mud huts...which we will be doing if we mess up this very important transition...

...and your approach is, unfortunately worser, its a rocket-sled ride straight into something much more scary than mud huts...

Cheers

blutto
 
blutto said:
...first, when you are engaged with someone in a conversation or a debate its a good idea to actually listen to what the other party is saying...on the one hand it is the polite thing to do and shows you are a gentleman and on the other hand it allows one to develop an effective counter-argument... if you don't do that, you risk the possibility of appearing to be a boorish lout who is incapable of dealing meaningfully with others...and your counter argument has the good possibilty of becoming meaningless...
Looks like someone put on his panties too tight.

Here is a clue for you since you are obviously in need of one. If you start off attacking people, do not be surprised when they respond in kind. Do not then go crying crocodile tears over being a gentleman, expecting people to buy into your charade of politeness.
 
Darryl Webster said:
My own great grandparents " couldnt keep it in there pants", my gran was one of 12. I have two kids. Is your assertion that somehow these people who cant keep it in there pants in countries you donts specify ( but might I assume there mainly rather poor and Black / South East Asian?) are somhow less capable of making better choices if conditions were better?.
Id hazard a guess that a huge % of eople on this forum dont have to go far back before there familes lines consisted of many more offspring than the 2.0 of much of developed societies.
It is not a matter of what color people are. It is a matter of whether their economies and available resources can support that many people. In a very short amount of time p!ssant little countries like Pak!stan and Nigeria will have populations greater than the United States. This will not end well.

Darryl Webster said:
It may seem counter intuitive to some but there the facts. Eliminate poverty you eliminate the population explosion.
Good luck with that. Get back to us when you have figured out how to fix these countries, something they have not been able to figure out for themselves.

These places will become vast killing fields within thirty years.
 
Nov 2, 2009
1,117
0
0
I think the 'big' problem is that the political and social institutions shaping our lives are oriented to the short-term: consumer capitalism is about maximising profits and growth NOW, governments are constrained in policy by a desire to be returned to power in a few years' time. We're living and making decisions for the next three years, rather than for the next 300 years. The rise of individualism is no doubt part of the problem too: if it's all about 'me' and mine, I don't need to be mindful of the big picture and the welfare of others, or the ways my actions impact on others, whether they be people living in less fortunate circumstances, people of future generations, or the survival of other species or the planet itself

Consumer capitalism seems to be the worst possible form of economy for an over-populated, dangerously polluted and fragile planet. Science (like so many things) has been both a blessing and a curse .

I don't think it's asking all that much for us to question the way we live, or for those in the affluent West to reduce energy consumption and consumerism for the sake of future generations, survival of other species or ours, and the well-being of the planet.

Darryl Webster (and the others) are right about the carbon footprints of the average person in the third world being minute compared to those of the average person in the affluent first world.

I suspect people in the future will look back on our society's way of life and see it as mind-bogglingly wasteful and self-indulgent, and as a kind of out-of-touch and extravagantly excessive aristocracy writ large.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Spare Tyre said:
I suspect people in the future will look back on our society's way of life and see it as mind-bogglingly wasteful and self-indulgent, and as a kind of out-of-touch and extravagantly excessive aristocracy writ large.
Not so differant to the Egyption`s with there Pharaohs and the Roman Empire and there Emporers....and we know how that all ended.:rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS