|
|
Post by musik on Jul 5, 2019 9:17:16 GMT
Ordinary people and politicians on the right side on the old political left-to-right scale are not often, but Always (at least in Sweden), the most skeptical ones regarding Global warming and other issues about our environment, like species and plants dying.
Simultaneously, they all (every political party) say it doesn't have to be like that - "the environment is not a typical left or right-question".
But fact is,
it is.
Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jul 5, 2019 9:47:33 GMT
Climate change and addressing environmental concerns must be regulated by governments to be effective, regulation can effect or potentially hinder business, even more so when said business activities actively damage the environment. Such businesses usually have stronger ties with those normally associated with the right of politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Jul 5, 2019 10:58:47 GMT
A lot of the climate change issue comes down to control and obsession with it. Mankind is controlling the climate through emissions, mankind must control the planet by reducing emissions, mankind must control survival or extinction of species etc. The left attracts more than its fair share of authoritarians.
The right on the other hand favour the more laissez-faire capitalist systems that are pro-industry etc. The right draws more than its fair share of skeptics because it inconveniently impacts on their businesses and profiteering.
Whilst I don't believe that human activity is exempt from blame when it comes to climate change, I do believe that certain aspects of it are being very cynically and cleverly manipulated to suit certain ends and agendas. For instance, if you claim that buying this product or voting for this party can "save the world", you instantly have a lot of idiots that gobble that right up. You can see right through some of this moronic exploitation as well with this terrible electric-car law etc. Most of the things being suggested and implemented are nothing more than short-term knee-jerks to make people feel like they're doing something useful, like the lightbulb thing. Some are just wildly exploitative ways of promoting new products in acts of planned obsolescence.
If the planet is going to boil and kill us all, or freeze and kill us all (or whatever they've changed their mind to today) then I just hope it hurries up.
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jul 5, 2019 13:08:12 GMT
If the planet is going to boil and kill us all, or freeze and kill us all (or whatever they've changed their mind to today) then I just hope it hurries up. Thanks. Pretty balanced post, but from these last sentences it seems you've given up?! Have a nice warmth balanced Weekend! |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jul 5, 2019 13:28:23 GMT
Climate change and addressing environmental concerns must be regulated by governments to be effective, regulation can effect or potentially hinder business, even more so when said business activities actively damage the environment. Such businesses usually have stronger ties with those normally associated with the right of politics. There was this thesis once written, about regulations and technical development. It basically said, when regulations are present the technical development suffers. But it's up to the companies to decide what direction they will go with their technical "development". Their technical development should be focused on the environment, not only because of the environment, they should also realize it has a remarkable goodwill value to do so, it will raise the value of their brand in the long run. It's a growing market. My personal view is that the industry world as we know it today has to come to an end. If not so, then the Earth won't be a pleasant place in 200 years. The main problem is the population growth. If we instead of doing business as usual would continue to develop eco friendlier engines, manufacturing processes etc, we could still return to the same material standard level some time in the future, as we have today. It will cost us in the short term though. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jul 6, 2019 20:21:57 GMT
Climate change and addressing environmental concerns must be regulated by governments to be effective, regulation can effect or potentially hinder business, even more so when said business activities actively damage the environment. Such businesses usually have stronger ties with those normally associated with the right of politics. There was this thesis once written, about regulations and technical development. It basically said, when regulations are present the technical development suffers. I think it's about balance and good design. If it's just regulations then Somalia should be landing people on Mars any day now! |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jul 6, 2019 20:43:49 GMT
Ordinary people and politicians on the right side on the old political left-to-right scale are not often, but Always (at least in Sweden), the most skeptical ones regarding Global warming and other issues about our environment, like species and plants dying. Simultaneously, they all (every political party) say it doesn't have to be like that - "the environment is not a typical left or right-question". But fact is, it is. Why? My guess is that the lefties have obvious fixes, like regulate or tax. Righties have fixes too, but in a lot of countries they work more with industries that want fewer regulations. The coal industry has billionaire barons who make more money when they get to skimp on safety and don't pay anything for killing miners or poisoning children. The coal barons are a centralised power that can easily buy politicians and propaganda to stop regulations. It's harder for industries where the power and profits are spread out like wind and solar. Well meaning voters then see the coal industry as an ally. When coal and oil spent hundreds of millions on propaganda and lobbying, it was very effective for Republicans in the US. I'm convinced most of the higher ups realise we're causing global warming and it's going to fuck my generation. But they'll just deny it in the future and have a lot more money and power. The propaganda is key - if they hadn't tricked enough voters then e.g. the Republicans in the US would be pushing free market fixes instead of going all conspiracy theory. That's my guess, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by cerebralstokie on Jul 6, 2019 20:57:26 GMT
Forests are the most effective carbon "sink". Planting more trees would help to slow down climate change.What we can do is almost (but not quite) pointless as long as the green light is given to cutting down thousands of square kms. of the Amazon rain forest. This is purely for financial gain of large agribusinesses with no regard for the consequences for the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Jul 6, 2019 23:10:10 GMT
James Lovelock coined the term Gaia Theory to suggest the Earth is a living entity in it's own right. If you expand that idea, then everything on Earth inhabits a host, making us all parasites like fleas on a dog
The other idea (perhaps coined by Buckminster Fuller) is the idea of Spaceship Earth: we all sit aboard the spaceship as it hurtles through space and the only resources we have are those on board
If they're accurate analogies it makes sense not to kill the host or run out of resources/pollute the only atmosphere we have and end life support on our ship.
Climate change could be the Earth's immune system heating up to kill off a pathogen: us
It's quite 'on trend' for social media drones to bang on about it but even if it's only part right things should be done to address the issue. It's a simple choice between economics and our progeny's future
|
|
|
|
Post by yes on Jul 7, 2019 6:52:23 GMT
Forests are the most effective carbon "sink". Planting more trees would help to slow down climate change.What we can do is almost (but not quite) pointless as long as the green light is given to cutting down thousands of square kms. of the Amazon rain forest. This is purely for financial gain of large agribusinesses with no regard for the consequences for the rest of us. There was a good article in the Guardian about a study, the summary was that we can save the environment, ourselves and many species by planting a fuck load of trees. The cheapest and best way to do it apparantely. I see no harm, however it is expensive, getting any government to commit to something that is genuinely good for the population and not their pockets is proving difficult. I agree with Boother that some of the stuff going round is knee jerk bollocks that makes barely any difference, and essentially puts the blame on the feet of the public, however there are still things that we can all do. Lightbulbs and plastic straws will make no difference. Cycling to work, and not eating fish will make much more of a difference in the same areas. |
|
