General Election 2010

[starchief]

The only thing which will really save the planet (this by the way is a SERIOUS post) is the humble condom and allied contraceptive methods

Absolutely WRONG!

No matter how many children the Third World has, they consume virtually nothing. Most people won't even switch on a lightbulb. It's consumerism that's damaging the world. Walk around many cities and see the air-conditioning units. When did we ever need them? How many cars growing up and how many now?

One-sixth of the population produce NO significant emissions according to a recent paper. These are also the areas with the highest population growth (to ensure some survive). A Wally Yacht (luxury yacht) burns more fuel in TEN MINUTES than the majority of Africans burn in their entire life.

It's easy to blame other people but it's the developed world that cut down all it's trees (save the rainforest 'coz we cut down all our woodland), been spouting mass pollution for years, stripped the world of it's resources and organised the world into countries that weren't needed or desired.

[+DoofersDad]

I think there have been loads of posts more entertaining than Mainstanders repetition of well known stereotyping of the political parties and thankfully most of them are not in the serious topics section. His humour only reaches the mildly amusing level because the message it delivers is so far removed from the truth.

Over the years I have met a lot of politicians in various capacities and the thing that impresses me about almost all those I have met, regardless of political colour, is that they are incredibly hard working and public spirited. Of course some of them like the sound of their own voices and are very good at publicising themselves but that is not about being self interested. It is about getting their political message across and that, regardless of their political persuasion is about trying to improve society for the rest of us.

And whilst there may be one or two who exploit the expenses system the majority do not. For most politicians, filling in expenses is a chore they really do not have the time for and returns are often completed by staff or family members. Errors happen and sometimes inappropriate things get claimed for, but so what! There will be plenty of things they could claim for but don't but you never hear the media talk about that. What does it say of our society when we seem to be more interested in whether an MP claimed for a tube of toothpaste than on their campaigning for democracy in Iran or whatever.

The fact is, most politicians are highly inteligent, hard working, public spirited individuals and they would not be put forward by their parties if they were not. The vast majority could be paid far more money for working far less hours if they used their talents in business and they live lives which put incredible pressure on their personal relationships. But they do it often from a sense of duty because they want to do good for society and to influence things in line with what they believe in. If the media focussed on the work they do and not on the trivial irrelevant tittle tattle of their personal lives then perhaps more people would be inclined to vote.

You may not be convinced by what I say but please consider this. Over the years thousands of people have died in trying to win the right to vote and this struggle continues to this day in many parts of the world. A vote is a precious thing which we owe to others to use. If you don't want to vote for any of the candidates at an election then that's your right. But please don't just not bother to vote. Go to the polling station and spoil your ballot paper! Write a short statement such as "I vote for the nationalisation of all banks" or whatever it is you feel none of the candidates represent your views on. That way you show you care and your statement demonstrates that you feel your views are not being represented. You also earn the right to criticise those politicians who you then feel are failing us.

If you don't put a mark on that ballot paper somewhere, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

[+DoofersDad]

The only thing which will really save the planet (this by the way is a SERIOUS post) is the humble condom and allied contraceptive methods

Absolutely WRONG!

No matter how many children the Third World has, they consume virtually nothing. Most people won't even switch on a lightbulb. It's consumerism that's damaging the world. Walk around many cities and see the air-conditioning units. When did we ever need them? How many cars growing up and how many now?

One-sixth of the population produce NO significant emissions according to a recent paper. These are also the areas with the highest population growth (to ensure some survive). A Wally Yacht (luxury yacht) burns more fuel in TEN MINUTES than the majority of Africans burn in their entire life.

It's easy to blame other people but it's the developed world that cut down all it's trees (save the rainforest 'coz we cut down all our woodland), been spouting mass pollution for years, stripped the world of it's resources and organised the world into countries that weren't needed or desired.

Sorry, but Charles is absolutely RIGHT.

Whilst accepting what you say about who consumes what, we need to think longer term than the dreadful inequalities in the world today. Those who are have nots aspire to have what the developed world currently has. The sad fact is that the planet cannot possibly sustain the current world population at a level of material wealth enjoyed by the richest 5% of the worlds population today or any thing like. The level of material wealth per capita the planet can sustain is directly proportional to the number of people on the planet.

There is certainly a lot we can do about more equitable distribution of wealth and in improving the environmental impact of our modern lifestyles but Charles is spot on in that the single biggest factor in all of this is the size of the world's polulation. Double the world's population and you halve each person's share of resource consumption the planet can sustain. I know this raises a plethora of extraordinarily difficult ethical issues but that does not stop it from being true.

[starchief]

Double the world's population and you halve each person's share of resource consumption the planet can sustain.

But it doesn't. Double the size of the population of the Western Sahara and there is still very little environmental impact. A small proportion increase in the US or Western Europe leads to a huge change in resource use. It's not the poor that created the problem, nor is limiting their population the solution. That lies with changing from a consumer economy to a green economy.

We don't all consume anything like the same resources person for person, country for country. Consumerism, with it's many add-ons (cash crops for wheat, imported vegetables, higher reliance on meat products, power-hungry but unnecessary machines etc etc etc) is the main problem. The rich are the cause and only a sea change in attitude can solve it. A simple population divided by resource model is crude, simplistic and unfair.

In fact, some figures. From 1980 to 2005 sub-Saharan Africa grew by around 20%. That contributed to under 2.5% in CO2 increase. North America grew by around 4% but produced an extra 15% CO2. So, if we reduced sub-Saharan Africa's population by one-fifth, there would still be no significant impact upon climate change. Population does not necessarily equate to amount of environmental damage. Consumerism is the key factor. But what you gonna give up for it?

Edited December 29, 2009 by starchief

[DAM]

Understanding that the planet does not have the capacity to support an ever expanding population using an ever increasing amount of resources does not make you a tree hugging hippy - rather than opting out, it means opting in to modern technological fixes that allow for sustainable development.

For me, the Green agenda will have to be adopted sooner or later on an international level if society is not to degenrate into warfare over ever diminishing resources.

The only thing which will really save the planet (this by the way is a SERIOUS post) is the humble condom and allied contraceptive methods. However I fear that attempts to implement such a policy would follow in the doomed steps of Kyoto and Copenhagen.

If we start off with the CO2, which seems to have become to the 21st century what Witchcraft was to the 17th, how is it produced? By PEOPLE.

Then there's food. Who eat it? PEOPLE. It's the same with water etc etc.

The problems which threaten the planet are mainly caused by there being too many people and the vital objective, however unlikely its achievement may in practice be, should therefore be to limit population.

Think, for instance, of the amount of CO2 which one person, especially of the North American variety, produces in a lifetime - his "carbon footprint", to delve into what is a rapidly expanding and increasingly hilarious Glossary of Global Warming Jargon.

Then think of the most prominent self appointed paragon within the climate change lobby - Mr. Al Gore.

How many hydrocarbon guzzling North American children has Mr. Gore produced?

FOUR.

Their combined lifetime carbon footprint, and all because Mr. Gore was unable to keep his bits in his trousers or unwilling to get a vasectomy, must be absolutely horrendous. So hang your head in shame Al for the damage you have done to the planet!

But sorry, I have allowed this thread to wander just a bit further from its original thrust so let me restore it with a question.

Given the current perception of politicians in this country, do you not think that Mainstander's earlier post, which was presumably partly tongue in cheek, maybe touches a few bases as far as the various parties in question are concerned?

I should perhaps also simply note that in recent elections, people do appear to have been exercising the "Don't Vote" option to an increasing extent.

Your post takes me back to around 1968 when I worked down the pit in Cardowan Colliery, outside Glasgow. One of the miners chalked on one of the overhead girders the words "we will outbreed you" and I have never forgotten that. He was one of the "non condom" brigade if you see what I mean.

[+DoofersDad]

Double the world's population and you halve each person's share of resource consumption the planet can sustain.

But it doesn't. Double the size of the population of the Western Sahara and there is still very little environmental impact. A small proportion increase in the US or Western Europe leads to a huge change in resource use. It's not the poor that created the problem, nor is limiting their population the solution. That lies with changing from a consumer economy to a green economy.

We don't all consume anything like the same resources person for person, country for country. Consumerism, with it's many add-ons (cash crops for wheat, imported vegetables, higher reliance on meat products, power-hungry but unnecessary machines etc etc etc) is the main problem. The rich are the cause and only a sea change in attitude can solve it. A simple population divided by resource model is crude, simplistic and unfair.

In fact, some figures. From 1980 to 2005 sub-Saharan Africa grew by around 20%. That contributed to under 2.5% in CO2 increase. North America grew by around 4% but produced an extra 15% CO2. So, if we reduced sub-Saharan Africa's population by one-fifth, there would still be no significant impact upon climate change. Population does not necessarily equate to amount of environmental damage. Consumerism is the key factor. But what you gonna give up for it?

But the point is that we need to aspire for the world's poor to live better lives than they currently do. Whilst we should consume less, many of the world's population need to consume more. If there is only so much to go round, if there are twice as many of us, we all get half as much on average.

[Charles Bannerman]

[No matter how many children the Third World has, they consume virtually nothing.

Given how many of them there are, they actually consume a great deal of food which they do not have the capacity to grow and which in certain cases their political systems prevent them from growing. However the Climate Change bandwagon has been so successful in focusing attention on CO2 (rather like Senator McCarthy and Communism in 50s USA) that other major problems such as food, water and population have been completely sidelined. So it also has to be said that a lot of these poorly developed countries are acquiring populations which their very limited natural environments are quite unable to cater for.

Furthermore I didn't exclude the developed world from condom use. (Pity George Bush Senior hadn't led by example :angry: :( ) The "West" can do a lot to keep population down as well and every single abstention will also create a disproportionately large reduction in resource use.

Let's not also forget that, while China's per capita resource use is growing at an enormous rate, so is India's - and its population with it. India is projected to become the most populous nation on the planet before too long.

Of course, alongside population control, there is also a significant place for reduction in per capita resource use but it has to be sound and sensible and not dependent on bogus science like much of what we hear about hydrogen power, electric cars and biofuels.

Come to think of it, on the subject of science - for fully 2000 years there was virtual unanimity among scientists about the nature of the cosmos and it was considered REALLY bad form to be one of the minority which didn't believe that the sun and everything else went round the earth..... :(

Edited December 29, 2009 by Charles Bannerman

[starchief]

But the point is that we need to aspire for the world's poor to live better lives than they currently do. Whilst we should consume less, many of the world's population need to consume more. If there is only so much to go round, if there are twice as many of us, we all get half as much on average.

It's the type of consumerism that I'm arguing about. If it's what we've been used to, yes, we're doomed. But if we look to a more 'green' economy (and that doesn't necessarily mean a more natural world), then emissions and loss of natural resources can be substantially reduced.

It's a tough choice and one that's possibly not even achievable in a democracy. After all, who is going to vote for what will happen in 50, 100 or 1000 years time?

Come to think of it, on the subject of science - for fully 2000 years there was virtual unanimity among scientists about the nature of the cosmos and it was considered REALLY bad form to be one of the minority which didn't believe that the sun and everything else went round the earth..... 024.gif

Yes, when religion ruled. But science did get it right, even when it had to be hidden. Now, if you can present your findings, rather than your beliefs, people are here to be persuaded. Evolution, genetics, relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes, yes, even global warming - the scientific community changed their minds in a relatively short time due to good, well thought out and methodically presented evidence.

If you've got the evidence, then present it. Otherwise, it's just a feeling, not a science. You might be right but how can a belief be trusted over structured research?

[Johnboy]

And whilst there may be one or two who exploit the expenses system the majority do not. For most politicians, filling in expenses is a chore they really do not have the time for and returns are often completed by staff or family members. Errors happen and sometimes inappropriate things get claimed for, but so what! There will be plenty of things they could claim for but don't but you never hear the media talk about that. What does it say of our society when we seem to be more interested in whether an MP claimed for a tube of toothpaste than on their campaigning for democracy in Iran or whatever.

What a load of coblers! One or two have been guilty of fiddling their expenses?

Where have you been?

Regards Iran, what's happening there is their concern, and theirs alone. Do you really want to create another hell-hole in the middle east by thrusting democracy on that country as it was in Iraq?

[Charles Bannerman]

Yes, when religion ruled.

You mean in the "good old days" before it was ousted by political correctness which now appears to control some people's behaviour just as stringently as religion used to?

Edited December 29, 2009 by Charles Bannerman