Monday, October 2, 2006

So much caring, so little compliance

Jay Jardine on climate change:

I would concede right off the bat the fact that the earth is warming, that the consequences could be disastrous and that human action is responsible for it. It is 99.999% likely that the person you are debating is a statist and is urging government action to reverse or mitigate the process. Put him on his heels by asking for specifics of his Plan - how long it will take to implement, how much it will cost, how will success be measured, who will implement it and how confident he is that the Right Solution will be put in place - on time - in spite of the inevitable political compromise along the way. It is far easier to cast doubt on the competence of a democratically-driven government process than to cast doubt on reams of scientific data and scholarly journals.

[..] is it more likely or less likely that the very same institution will be able to successfully manage the restoration of the earth's climate to its "correct" level? What, specifically would cause this institution to be more competent in the task of changing the earth's climate than running the roads, registering firearms or "helping" poor people?
A report prepared by PricewaterhouseCooper recommends halting economic growth, although this would result in an increase in general poverty. The good news is that for the bargain rate of $1,000,000,000,000, the greedy rich nations can give something back to the global community. (HT: Drudge Report.)
The report, byPricewaterhouseCoopers, lays bare the potential damage to the environment of the industrial revolution in China and India. It puts a price of $1 trillion (£526bn) on the cost of sorting out the problem spread over the next generation. The bill is equivalent to a year's output of the economy of Canada, and less than half of the total stock of debt that has been built up by Britain's households. But it is less than the cost in terms of environmental catastrophe and loss of life that scientists fear will happen as temperatures and sea levels rise. "It is implicit from our findings that a trillion dollars certainly is a cost worth incurring," said John Hawksworth, the chief economist at PwC and author of the report.

Turbo-charged growth in emerging economies is helping to drag billions of people out of poverty across Asia, Latin America and eastern Europe.

But according to PwC, the price will be paid by sharp rises in global energy consumption and carbon emissions. They say it means the rich nations that have done most to cause the problem must take more drastic action to reduce their environmental impact.

The report comes as the environmental community awaits a key Treasury-commissioned report on the economic cost of climate change. Sir Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank, is expected to conclude that it will be cheaper to act now to curb energy use than to pay for the cost of symptoms later.

His findings, which will be presented to G8 environment ministers during a closed-door session at a summit in Mexico next week, will also outline the financial impact of global warning. Sir Nicholas will reject the alternative argument that the world should maximise economic growth to build reserves to meet the costs of the final reckoning.

PwC said it had attempted to put a price on slowing the growth in carbon emissions because it was impossible to calculate the cost of climate change. "If sea levels rise and a lot of people in Bangladesh drown do you calculate the loss of their lifetime earnings, even though they will be lower than for the UK? It is a difficult moral question," Mr Hawksworth said.
If tax rates continue to rise and a lot of people in London perish waiting for a doctor, do you calculate the loss of their lifetime tax contributions, or do you celebrate the longevity of the tasmanian devil?
It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

Joseph Stalin
Sharing the message of peace and love at Dust my Broom.


Anonymous said...

The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.

The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.

Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.

Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.

If there are no gaps there is no emotion.

Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.

When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.

There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.

People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.

Emotion ends.

Man becomes machine.

A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.





To read the complete article please follow either of these links :




Sky Captain said...