The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Don't mention the poor > Comments

Don't mention the poor : Comments

By Lyn Bender, published 22/5/2013

Emphasising how the poorer nations, particularly the poorest of those nations, will suffer first and most with climate change, falsely soothes and lulls those of us who could stem the tide.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
The fact that around 40% of us live just above or below the poverty line, is what really prevents action on climate change; given, the current action, just makes using energy more expensive.
So what else can the poorest amongst us do, after turning off their hot water systems and staying in bed to keep warm?
Turn off the fridge and or eat their food raw? I don't mind a rare steak, but I'd object if it said moo, on the way to my plate!
And undercooked chicken or pork, is a recipe for disastrous diarrhoea!
And sushi, may come with a whole host of parasites.
The reason we don't have any real action on climate change is the reluctance of recalcitrant green advocates everywhere, to accept nuclear power.
And instead, continue to advocate so called renewable energy, arguably the most expensive options, wind and solar voltaic?
And then find fault in wind power, given the blades may hurt some birds or spoil the landscape!
The usual objections to nuclear power are based on 1940's technology and waste disposal!
And cheaper than coal thorium is answered with offensive disbelief, or endless requests for links.
I had to do my own study, and suggest others should do likewise, but only if they wish to become knowledgeable on any topic!
This recalcitrant response has done more to anchor us and the climate change debate or any effective action, than almost anything else we've done!
They even prefer to lock up indigenous fuel, which could in common use, produce just 25% of the carbon we produce, by preferring fully imported foreign fuels.
The poor simply cannot respond by using less!
We should therefore abandon the current approach or recipe for an eventual elimination event, and instead, adopt those strategies that even the poorest can actually afford; and or, simply walk out the door!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 22 May 2013 11:49:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The poor often suffer the most in natural or man-made disasters, but this does not make them “scapegoats”. “Scapegoat” implies, in its biblical context, a creature made to atone for the community’s sins, or in modern idiom someone falsely blamed for the faults of others. Neither applies in the case of the world’s poor. From the point of view of the poor, climate change may be the lesser evil.

The false “scapegoat” metaphor is linked to another assumption in the article that I disagree with – that the prosperity of the rich world is the cause of poverty in the rest of the world. History and evidence do not bear this up. Both rich and poor countries have, on average, got richer in the past 200 years or so, but until recently the rich world gained much faster, hence the growing gap between rich and poor. Trade is not the cause of “exploitation” and poverty, but an important part of the solution, as every country that escaped poverty in the past 60 years demonstrates. Does Lyn seriously think Bangladeshi workers will be better off if we refuse to buy the things they produce?

By blaming the rich for both climate change and poverty, Lyn’s argument is constructed to avoid what I think is the real moral challenge of climate change policies. The poor may suffer most as a result of climate change, but paradoxically they will also suffer most as a result of measures to prevent it. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes energy more costly, and that is going to make it harder for underdeveloped countries to escape poverty. For the poor, climate change may be the lesser evil.

For example, the world’s largest GHG emitting country is now China, which has apparently decided to prioritise economic development ahead of environmental considerations. The result has been the fastest and biggest reduction in poverty in human history, but also a massive increase in pollution and environmental damage
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 22 May 2013 12:10:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian has certainly exposed the 'horns of the dilemma' as it were. However, were there no 'climate change 'scam' there would be no dilemma at all. Were there no 'green' idiocy, Rhrosty may have an excellent solution to elevating the poor from poverty.

Abundant cheap energy is the solution to the poverty problem, as demonstrated repeatedly (as Rhiannon observes) in China.
Posted by Prompete, Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:47:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It has been Capitalist markets that have lifted an unprecedented proportion of the world's population out of abject poverty, not the UN, colourful plastic wrist bands or State Charity. Money wasted on the Green monster of Climate Change nee "Global Warming" has an opportunity cost. So how many more Africans are living in squalor who would have been merely poor and those who would have been in squalor who are now dead, from reduced world growth.

Latte class vanity competition has a cost, often in mangled lives.
Posted by McCackie, Saturday, 25 May 2013 2:08:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy