Climate Change could attack within 45 minutes. - by jay pettitt
Shayde on 31/10/2006 at 05:42
Quote Posted by Gestalt
I'll call it the ANGLOSPHERE.
Fuck you colonialist PIGDOG - my AFROSPHERE declares war upon you! :mad:
Scots Taffer on 31/10/2006 at 05:58
That sounds like a wicked hairdo, Shayde.
Turtle on 31/10/2006 at 06:04
Can we call you 'Chocolate Caramel'?
Or 'Cleopatra Cocoa'?
Nicker on 31/10/2006 at 09:16
I used to believe in global warming but since I heard it coming out of Tony Blair's mouth my faith is crumbling. Either way, it's great to know that good ol' money will once again save the day. \o/
Ajare on 31/10/2006 at 15:15
Where's a farting robot when you need one?
TheGreatGodPan on 31/10/2006 at 19:38
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
So the first thing I notice in that article is them talking about ZOMG ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. FUCK you people. Isn't there a government that cares even to give a shit about humanity?
The two aren't completely seperate issues. China and Russia, for example, both had massive famines in which a lot of people starved to death because of poor economic policies. As one economist said, once you start thinking about exponential growth, it's hard to think about anything else.
Uncia on 31/10/2006 at 19:56
UV never said they were separate issues, he said they were putting the emphasis on the wrong facet of it.
scumble on 31/10/2006 at 22:09
The quick round-up I heard on the radio just enumerated the main problems - people displaced, economic impact.
Well, an economic downturn is a humanitarian problem, because a decent amount of wealth is needed to deal with whatever problems climate change presents.
I suppose the thoughts that present themselves are: will reducing co2 emmisions really have much of an effect at this stage, if indeed the burning of fuels is mainly responsible. So rather than trying to reduce emissions somehow, might it make more sense to just deal with humanitarian problems that will result? In any case, is it even likely that some great co-ordinated international "action" will result. It's all very well for some bloke with a knighthood to say "we" should act "internationally, strongly and urgently", but what does that mean in practice?
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Governments generally care about humanity, but the only way to appeal to the shadowy corporations who actually control our world is to persuade them that global warming will hit them in the pocket.
Are we talking about the governments who seem to be doing a pretty good job of making a mess of the middle east, perhaps? It might be more accurate to say that some people working in government care about humanity, many are just egomaniacs (mostly politicians) and many just needed a job.
Also, these "shadowy corporations" aren't shadowy at all, in many cases they're effectively in partnership with government. I mean, if we think of the massive expansion in car usage, and consequent rise in the use of combustible fuel, consider the vast subsidies to the road system over the last hundred years - it's like a gift to car manufacturers and oil companies. In the case of the Federal Highway system in the US, the chief of General Motors was right in there from the start, apparently. Certainly isn't surprising given the vast potential car sales.
However you look at it, it's rather simplistic to keep repeating this "Governments good, corporations bad" spiel. Well, I think so at least. Better to look at the wider picture than just sit in the liberal or conservative zones. Insights may be gained and minds may broaden.
