|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 20, 2015 11:52:13 GMT
Yeah! Hypocrisy
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jun 20, 2015 12:40:53 GMT
What was the point of that last post? To make people go back a page to see what it referred to? It's easy not to be a hypocrite though, isn't it? Just don't have any principles.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 21, 2015 10:51:46 GMT
Logically, SOMEONE has to be the world's biggest polluter, aubrey. So what?
Pollution can be dealt with and IS dealt with by legislation, fines and clean-ups.
Your hate campaign against global capitalism is crass. The benefits from oil are far greater than the disbenefits. Ever heard of cost-benefit analysis?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 21, 2015 11:01:46 GMT
But instead of trying to spread dirt against your perceived enemies, why don't you deal with the point of the post in question - tropical forest destruction courtesy of Green demands for bio-diesel from palm oil plantations? is that a bit too difficult for you to get your head round? You are aware of the annual scourge of smoke blanketing parts of the world close to where land is being burned in preparation for palm oil plantations? Even the WWF is up in arms about it! Get with the message, man! wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/palm_oil/environmental_impacts/air_pollution/
|
|
jean
Madrigal Member
Posts: 8,546
|
Post by jean on Jun 21, 2015 11:16:38 GMT
But instead of trying to spread dirt against your perceived enemies, why don't you deal with the point of the post in question - tropical forest destruction courtesy of Green demands for bio-diesel from palm oil plantations? Perhaps because such 'Green demands' are yet another figment of your imagination? Biodiesel fuelling palm oil expansion
Commitments from various governments to increase the amount of biofuels being sold are pushing this rise in demand, because they're seen as an attractive quick fix to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By 2020, 10 per cent of fuel sold in the EU will be biofuel and China expects 15 per cent of its fuel to be grown in fields, while India wants 20 per cent of its diesel to be biodiesel by 2012. The irony is that these attempts to reduce the impact of climate change could actually make things worse - clearing forests and draining and burning peatlands to grow palm oil will release more carbon emissions than burning fossil fuels.
But this phenomenal growth of the palm oil industry spells disaster for local communities, biodiversity, and climate change as palm plantations encroach further and further into forested areas. This is happening across South East Asia, but the problem is particularly acute in Indonesia which has been named in the 2008 Guinness Book of Records as the country with fastest rate of deforestation. The country is also the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, largely due to deforestation.
Much of the current and predicted expansion oil palm expansion in Indonesia is taking place on forested peatlands. Peat locks up huge amounts of carbon, so clearing peatlands by draining and burning them releases huge greenhouse gases. Indonesia's peatlands, cover less than 0.1 per cent of the Earth's surface, but are already responsible for 4 per cent of global emissions every year. No less than ten million of Indonesia's 22.5 million hectares of peatland have already been deforested and drained.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jun 21, 2015 11:57:58 GMT
Logically, SOMEONE has to be the world's biggest polluter, aubrey. So what? Pollution can be dealt with and IS dealt with by legislation, fines and clean-ups. Your hate campaign against global capitalism is crass. The benefits from oil are far greater than the disbenefits. Ever heard of cost-benefit analysis? And logically, the world's biggest polluter is not going to be some green type company, but something to do with fossil fuels. Inadequate fines/ compensation (which are negotiated down, and sometimes all but abandoned - see New Jersey), legislation controlled by oil money, half-hearted clean-ups, affects of pollution played down, ignored etc. If you have Govt representatives paid for by the fossil fuel industries any clean-up is going to be not much more than PR (see ALEC). And if you've been killed by pollution you're not going to be that bothered whatever happens afterwards. Cost/benefit - happen in different places - it costs in one place, benefits another.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 26, 2015 9:20:22 GMT
www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/25/eus-obsession-with-climate-change-drives-orang-utans-to-brink-of-extinction/ From Breitbart:
The orang-utan population of Indonesia is being driven to the brink of extinction thanks to the massive deforestation underway to satisfy the rapidly growing demand for palm oil as a biofuel. Some scientists estimate that as many as 95 percent of the orang-utans native to Sumatra have already been wiped out. A report in the Telegraph has detailed the level of devastation wrought on the orang-utan population by deforestation. The creatures not only face extermination thanks to loss of habitat directly; forest felling increasingly puts them in conflict with the local human population. Farmers will kill orang-utans caught raiding crops for food, despite it being illegal.
Dr Ian Singleton, a world authority on orang-utans and the director of Sumatran Orang-utan Conservation Programme told the Telegraph that the population toll on organ-utans and other indigenous animals is being fuelled by the alarming pace of clear-felling taking place across much of northern Sumatra.
“After they’ve cleared the forest I go into some of these places, looking for signs of life. Every living thing, everything that crawls or slithers, even mosses and insects, are obliterated in this process. Everything that lived and breathed is dead!” Singleton said.
“These orphans [in his conservation centre] are the by-product of forest loss. These are the lucky ones, the survivors of this whole process. We don’t see the mothers and fathers that are killed. And even if you’re not killed, or attacked by villagers in plantations, you’ll still die of malnutrition and starvation.”………
But although the Telegraph reports that much of the forest has been cleared to satisfy the west’s growing demand for palm oil, they don’t mention that one of the key drivers for the increase in palm oil use is the EU’s insistence on using biofuels – including biodiesel made from palm oil – to fulfill it’s climate change targets. more....
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 26, 2015 9:24:06 GMT
So which of YOUR "benefits" are you volunteering to give up to balance the equation, aubrey?
Another piece of moralistic cant.
You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. In the long run everyone benefits, and even in the not so long run. Ask the Indians and Chinese lifted out of dire poverty whether it was worth the air pollution. Air pollution can be more properly tackled with nations that have the surplus wealth to do so. Ask the humans who survived childbirth and childhood to live to adulthood whether the costs are worth the benefits. You are crass, aubrey.
So long as population grows, courtesy of better health care due to fossil-fuelled modernisation and industrialisation, there will be stresses and strains on the environment. Live with it. It has always been part of the human condition, ever since mankind started exterminating the mega fauna with his puny spears and bows and arrows.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jun 26, 2015 9:45:31 GMT
I have already given some up. People on benefits and the low paid are being forced to give up much more than those on the highest incomes, who have actually doubled their wealth over the past few years, in a time of austerity that we are all supposed to be in together.
"In the long run..." Always, "In the long run." No one who is told that ever gets to see it. Maybe their great grand children might see a bit of it; but they'll be last in the queue. In the UK it took 200 years of industrialism and two world wars before things started to get better for most people.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 26, 2015 18:16:15 GMT
II am not talking of your cash benefits fom the welfare state, aubrey, but of the benefits of a fossil-fuelled civilisation that you enjoy and want to deny the under-developed nations!
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jun 27, 2015 7:03:25 GMT
Yes. It was 200 years after the start of the industrial revolution before the welfare state was founded, and that was only because there had been a world war - without that the conditions of the 20s and 30s would not have been changed that much, for most people.
It would be quicker now: but you are asking the people of the underdeveloped nations to suffer several generations of pollution and exploitation before they get anything similar.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 30, 2015 9:17:14 GMT
New York Times: Is the American approach to combating climate change going off the rails?Last year, President Obama set a goal of reducing carbon emissions by as much as 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, only 10 years from now. Now, environmental experts are suggesting that some parts of the strategy are, at best, a waste of money and time. At worst, they are setting the United States in the wrong direction entirely. That is the view of some of the world’s top environmental organizations, including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club. On Tuesday, they argued in a letter to the White House that allowing the burning of biomass to help reduce consumption of fossil fuels in the nation’s power plants, as proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, would violate the Clean Air Act. It turns out that burning biomass for power produces 50 percent more CO2 than burning coal. And even if new forest growth were to eventually suck all of it out of the atmosphere, it would take decades — perhaps more than a century — to make up the difference and break even with coal. What this evidence suggests is that climate change strategies too often lack strong analytical foundations, and are driven more by hope than science. Policy makers would be making a mistake to proceed as if their favored methods are working, when the data shows they aren’t. www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/business/combating-climate-change-with-science-rather-than-hope.html?_r=1 Sooo, even the arch CO2 alarmists admit biomas isn't Green! Perhaps they will adopt nuclear instead?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 30, 2015 9:51:40 GMT
The benefits of industrial capitalism are worth waiting for. Far more worthwhile than the "planned economy" of the central planners and "world governance" types. It should be obvious to anyone with a grain of historical consciousness that the apparent "short cut" to development of central planning inevitably goes hand in hand with an extreme loss of liberty and ever more corruption
China is investing in a big way in Africa and the spin off from their infrastructure spending will benefit Africa as well as China.
Corruption is what has slowed down Africa's development. The influence of the "Chinese Way" will undoubtedly be beneficial for Africa. Don't be so negative, aubrey.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 30, 2015 10:24:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jun 30, 2015 16:29:07 GMT
No, no corruption in China.
You know palm oil isn't only used for bio fuel? And that the bio fuel problem was conceded a long, long time ago? It was a mistake: far better reducing fuel use through subsidised public transport and the like.
|
|