The Forum > Article Comments > Power shift, power change > Comments
Power shift, power change : Comments
By Lucy Manne, published 8/7/2010Climate change is a defining issue for many members of Generation Y. Politicians will ignore them at their peril.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- ›
- All
Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 9 July 2010 11:54:47 AM
| |
CO2 – I'm more aware than you that Shell/BP were sponsors in the establishment of the Climate Research Unit at the UEA. Despite your silly claim, the laboratory/facility set-up was to the detriment of Shell/BP et al. However, the UEA transparently and publicly acknowledged the sponsorship (among other donors) and also their gratitude.
Unlike denialists, the UEA are not laundering massive millions of dollars through institutes and foundations to support a war against mitigating pollution, therefore, ignore clowns and curmudgeons perpetuating erroneous and despicable disinformation: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10604 Are you suggesting that the UEA board who allocates this funding to its campus divisions is corrupt? If yes, then you must also acknowledge that the University of Sydney is corrupt since Rio Tinto's recent donation was $21 million for R&D ‘to support their global mining and processing activities.’ Are you suggesting that researchers who accept public funding to investigate causes for cancer or the dreaded muscular dystrophy, Parkinsons etc are corrupt? What about the cancer pervading Planet Earth, the result of an international mining industry, corrupt and out of control? And I would request that you do not jump to conclusions since I have been vehemently opposed to the ETS. I do not support paying rogue industries to pollute with impunity and I have adhered to the “Polluter Pays” principle for thirty years. Yet it remains unarguable that we are heading toward a world ecological crisis even without adding in the damage of climate change. Biodiversity is declining rapidly, as the habitats and ecosystems of forests, wetlands, coral reefs, rivers and oceans are plundered for resources with impunity. Anthropogenic pollution - particularly hydrocarbons, radionuclides, contamination of aquifers, overfishing, desertification, salinity, massive losses of organic soil carbon and extinctions, collectively, has humanity on the road to crisis before climate change added fuel to the fire - literally. CO2 is the final progeny of some of the most hazardous chemicals known. The last decade was the hottest on record (BOM) - are they too 'corrupt?' Ignoring the irrefutable scientific evidence will be to your extreme disadvantage. I have offered a solution. What's your solution Pal? Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 9 July 2010 1:31:53 PM
| |
Oto, I didn't say you *literally* said those things, I said that that's what it boiled down to. When challenged on GenY's flying addiction, you responded that Baby Boomers did it more, and how much you enjoy overseas travel.
All well and good, but it still avoids the basic problem: you are repeatedly indulging in an activity which is apparently morally wrong, but you're not prepared to give it up because it benefits YOU. Despite what you think, you have studiously avoided answering the question of the morality of carbon trading, instead you've made some vague motherhood statements about 'finding more sustainable ways' of enjoying your indulgent lifestyle. But the point is, you *don't* have sustainable ways of doing so; nonetheless, you have no intention of giving up the very things you say are endangering the planet. I might say that cheating on my wife is morally wrong; I mean, I'd prefer her to agree to an open relationship, but in the meantime I'll keep on cheating on her because I just like sex with other women so much. What's the word I'm looking for ..? Oh yes: HYPOCRISY. Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 9 July 2010 7:48:47 PM
| |
Alright, Clownfish. We clearly are not going to agree here. Certainly I do not believe I am a hypocrite, any more than you are likely to believe that you are bitter and unpleasant. Maybe we're both wrong.
As for Gen Y's flying addiction, I must be an anomaly, having enjoyed one overseas holiday. Hardly 'repeatedly indulging in an activity which is apparently morally wrong', is it? Not that I have ever said - or suggested - that it is morally wrong. If you think it is, that's all well and good. And I certainly haven't said anything about enjoying overseas travel - I said that it was beneficial. I stand by that. As for my 'indulgent' lifestyle, you have no right whatsoever to state that my lifestyle is indulgent. You do not know me, you know nothing about my lifestyle and you have no reason to believe that it is indulgent. Once again, you are making silly and unfounded assumptions based entirely on the generation to which I belong. Your last post does, however, illustrate perfectly my point about dismissiveness. Rather than rebutting my argument that we can make progress by finding more sustainable ways of maintaining our standard of living, you simply call it a 'vague motherhood statement'. Can you please either address this issue and explain why it is wrong, or leave it alone? I haven't (at any point) said that we have a perfect solution to the pollution caused by international flights. I'm well aware that we don't. I did, however, question your assertion that carbon offsetting flights is a scam - something you have yet to support with any evidence at all. Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 9 July 2010 10:49:16 PM
| |
Wow, now I'm confused: is it one overseas holiday you've taken or two? Or twelve, or more? First, you describe your 'many' flights and your 'choice of destination' and 'fellow tourists', then you say that of 12 overseas flights, 10 were necessities, not recreational, now you lay claim to just one overseas holiday.
I say 'repeatedly', because you state quite unequivocally that you have flown overseas 'many times, and will do so many more times.' However, to the question of morality: Perhaps I am assuming too much here, but given your previous statements, you at least agree that climate change is a very serious problem, and that you would not dispute the claims of climate scientists. Climate scientists are generally quite unequivocal about stating that aviation is one of the most significant contributors to climate change. Folks like Plane Stupid are quite vocal about telling us how bad it is. Surely it should therefore follow that if frequent flying is contributing substantially to what you acknowledge is a serious environmental problem, frequent flying is thus morally wrong? Or perhaps the good chaps at BP should just be let off scot-free after all? Quite specifically, you described overseas travel as a luxury: 'a pleasure out of the ordinary allowed to oneself; a foolish or worthless form of self-indulgence; a material object, service, etc., conducive to sumptuous living.' Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but treating oneself to a 'worthless form of self-indulgence' (thus, an 'indulgent lifestyle' *as regards flying*, which was quite obviously my point), even though you acknowledge that it is contributing to an environmental disaster, is surely morally wrong? Cont. ... Posted by Clownfish, Saturday, 10 July 2010 10:32:50 AM
| |
Cont. ...
Saying airily that 'we can make progress by finding more sustainable ways of maintaining our standard of living' is a 'vague motherhood statement' because that's exactly what it is. You haven't made any specific argument as to *how* we can apparently do so in any way - much less with regards to aviation, which is what we're specifically what we're discussing here - all you've done is indulge in some wishful thinking said is that 'we can'. And in the meantime, let's continue with our old, polluting ways, 'cos it's just so *beneficial*. As it stands, you've advanced nothing more than wishful thinking. I could say, as that rather tiresome song goes, 'Imagine all the people sharing all the world', but it's hardly a plan for addressing malnutrition or global resource distribution, is it? Still, I'll agree that I come across here as 'bitter and unpleasant'; people say the same about Richard Dawkins, too, so not bad company I think. All in all, it's pretty inevitable when you have a low tolerance for b@llsh!t. If there's one thing I've found, it's that the sanctimoniously serious purveyors of zealotry, whether they be Creationists or Warmists, really can't stand, it's being made fun of. Pop their self-righteous bubble and they immediately accuse you of 'bigotry', 'intolerance' and 'unpleasantness'. Another is that glaring hypocrisy is their stock in trade. Posted by Clownfish, Saturday, 10 July 2010 10:33:44 AM
|
1) I have flown on 12 international flights. Four were for immigration purposes, six for work. I don't know how I sleep at night because of the last two.
2) Never did I say that 'the oldies do it too, so why shouldn't we?' and 'but we really, really, really like emitting tons of greenhouse gases'. What I said is that the ideal way forward is to find more sustainable ways of doing the things that have made our lives great. That includes the air travel that has been enjoyed by several generations and is not, as you implied, a Generation Y 'thing'. I think that answers the question about morality, but keep drawing long bows if you want. It's entertaining.
3) Your first link doesn't say that carbon offsetting is a scam. It says there is potential for fraud there.
4) Your second had nothing to do with carbon offsetting of flights. It had lots to do with tree planting, which none of the flights I have looked at do as a means of offsetting emissions.
5) Your third called for investment in renewable energy. Interestingly, carbon offsetting with both QANTAS and Virgin Blue is invested in renewable energy sources like wind and solar power.
6) Your fourth highlighted the ResponsibleTravel argument I had already linked to. Once again, though, it had nothing to do with flights.
7) Your next link tells us that 'carbon neutral' isn't something it never claimed to be. Nowhere have I seen the claim that my carbon offset will recapture the pollution my flight has released. Instead, they claim that it will be invested in technologies that will reduce further pollution.
I shall reiterate. I do not support wholesale, wasteful pollution. I do not support cutbacks which limit our quality of life. I do, however, think we are now at a place where we can think about enjoying our lives more sustainably.
By the way: I addressed you respectfully. You should try the same. Dismissiveness is unpleasant.