Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    bb
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I'm sure it was an eye-opener for some.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I think global warming is happening and it is probably the result of human action. However, I think there is too much of an anti-capitalist agenda here. Cutting CO2 emissions by 90% would have a monumental impact on the global economy and I feel that this cost would not be worth the possible long-term benefit.

    The most practical solution, in my view is a mixed one. We should act now to cut as much CO2 as possible without overly damaging our economies. But we should also recognise that reactive policy can make a substantial impact.

    Iron seeding in the oceans to suck up CO2. Putting particles and mirrors in the atmosphere to deflect sunlight.

    This area need some real debate and some lateral thinking, and alot of that is actually only occuring in America, where the debate is less stifled by entrenched consensus positions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lets make a concert that requires LOTS of electricity, and for 65,000 people to fill up their car with fuel and drive to the stadium - wow, great idea, not to mention the fact that half the singers probably had a helicopter bring them here.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    That's very debatable though. That's not to say I don't believe there is an economic advantage.

    Lets make a concert that requires LOTS of electricity, and for 65,000 people to fill up their car with fuel and drive to the stadium - wow, great idea, not to mention the fact that half the singers probably had a helicopter bring them here.
    It's worth it if it makes an impact.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I read that China is now the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world. They are not going to stop the growth of their economy now as that would be stupid. Same with India. These two countries alone have over a third of the world's population so it will take a huge effort on the part of the rest of the world to offset the increase in greenhouse gas emissions as these people use more energy, travel more, buy more cars etc

    Saying that, it is important that we produce more of our energy from renewables simply because they are renewable and we won't be able to rely on the fuels we use today forever
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I believe it is happening, i don't know whether we are the cause, i don't think it matters because it is a fact that the Earth is warming up, and that as the most intelligent life-form, we are the only ones who MIGHT be able to do something to curb this.

    However, i can't bring myself to give a toss, if i'm honest. I think all of the people who say they don't believe it actually do, but don't do the decent thing and admit they don't really care. I wish i cared, but its one of those remote problems that seems too far off to really give a damn about right now. When i can't breathe, i'll start putting glass into banks, and try and stop farting, or whatever it we are supposed to do to tackle global warming.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    yeah but we got only 30 year more of coal use i think that how much is left, and china and india need to be sorted out, if we stop out soucrs to them country that would cut down, and china 2 new coal power stationa week are built
    India has the highest rate of malnutrition in children under the age of 3 in the world, has 300 million people living under the poverty line and has a literacy rate of just 64.8%. Stopping the growth of its economy will make it much more difficult to change that. Hardly sounds like they best way of saving the world to me? Someone should do a charity concert about it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In two years, China will have completed construction of the Three Gorges Dam which will be by far the biggest hydro-electric station in the world and the country already produces more energy from hydroelectric power stations than any other country in the world. Unfortunatly, it would not make economical sense to use only renewables to feed its rapidly increasing need for energy, they need cheap, efficient units and coal suits that purpose very well.

    Anyway surely as a "more advanced country" we should practice what we preach and stop using coal (US) and gas (UK) before we tell China and India what to do?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Britain produces only 2% of the worlds CO2, the restrictions they have put in place haven't worked and will be detrimental to the economy, we will loose our competitiveness and be seen by foreign companies as not a good place to operate in due to laws and green taxes. China has overtaken the US this year, they are building new power stations every week and in India they are buying a new aircraft every few days. People lecture on about how we must set an example, who says we have the right to restrict them from economic development and market capitalism.

    My take on this current 'green movement' is that because of past events. The left wing socialist movement of CND and other socialist organisations that were prolific in the Cold War are now dead and without an ideology to fight seeing as the free market and neo-liberalism won. This movement has transcended to fight against capitalism now on the basis that its bad for the environment. I've watched some of the concerts that have happened today and there is a very, very left wing socialist agenda at work here which I find rather worrying.

    All the money that is being used to fight climate change would be a lot bloody better spent on helping LEDC's in Africa and Asia, get rid of the trade restrictions and help them build up industry which will improve. We could be curing AID's or vaccinate millions of people or stop world hunger with all the billions that is spent around the world. Global warming is still theoretical, science is focussed on the man made version at the moment which in science means more money for research, if your a scientist your going to want to get the money for your little project.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    coal will soon run out, and thats fair play on china hydro electtic good move on them
    I wouldn't call 600 years soon if you guy by the estimate on current energy consumption. New coal is found often and there are lots of unexplored areas, we haven't even started looking at the South Pole yet which is expected to yield a good bit of carbon based fuels.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    its time for the talking to stop and the action to happen,
    Sounds like a lot of work.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Sounds like a lot of work.
    Perhaps it would be more convenient for you to be part of the group of people who were too lazy to prevent the human race from destroying planet Earth, then
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I think the human race needs to learn it's place in the natural order of things.

    Are we really capable of destroying a planet? I think not.

    I think green campaigners need to acknowledge that at least part of this is anti-capitalist propoganda.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    I think the human race needs to learn it's place in the natural order of things.

    Are we really capable of destroying a planet? I think not.

    I think green campaigners need to acknowledge that at least part of this is anti-capitalist propoganda.
    It isn't a question of literally destroying the planet. What it is a case of is fundamentally altering its dynamics irrevocably. And it's already happening - the scientific proof is extremely sound. If that isn't good enough, perhaps the icebergs the size of Wales is enough evidence? A human being may not be very powerful compared to nature, but 6 billion of them are a different matter. A big enough Army of Ants could destroy a forest - it's the same thing on a different scale.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Perhaps it would be more convenient for you to be part of the group of people who were too lazy to prevent the human race from destroying planet Earth, then
    Yeah, do you know of one?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    I think the human race needs to learn it's place in the natural order of things.
    Our place is the top of the pile - the Earth is ours.

    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    I think green campaigners need to acknowledge that at least part of this is anti-capitalist propoganda.
    That's the environmental movement as a whole - always has been. It's incredibly damaging because it puts a lot of people off environmental causes to see them hijacked by general left-wing nonsense.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a believer in Global Warming, but I just don't buy it hook line and sinker like everyone else in the world seems to... because I don't like being spoon fed my political opinion... and I don't like the "easy answers" peddled by the left on this issue.

    Just like every other political question there are pros and cons on either side.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Who's idea was it to sing :

    Que sera, sera
    Whatever will be, will be
    The future's not ours to see
    Que sera, sera

    At a LIVE EARTH GIG?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    His manager, apparently.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.