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 > Environmental ethics - a world record for misplaced concern > Comments

Environmental ethics - a world record for misplaced concern : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 15/2/2007

In the time it takes to read this article 30 people in the developing world will die. In the same time, the sea-levels won’t rise a milli-fraction.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Amazing.
The Greens have no real power and yet they somehow have to be responsible for addressing and even fixing a multitude of problems before they can even begin to be taken seriously.

There is no such thing as a collective "green" voice.
There are millions of individual people on this planet who to one degree or another have some kind of sympathy with some, most, or all of "green" ideas.

In my opinion the "greens" are the only people who are asking REAL questions. They may or may not have any answers.

Meanwhile the capitalist world death machine with its drive to total power and control IS grinding everything to rubble!

How do you even begin to stop a machine that has such seemingly unstoppable momentum?

One of my favourite books which explained the origins & consequences of the capitalist death machine is The Pentagon of Power by Lewis Mumford published in 1972. Meanwhile in the 35 years since ALL the negative tendencies and outcomes that Mumford warned us about that book have manifested. Have you read the "news"?
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 15 February 2007 8:49:36 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
A quote from my favourite "philosopher".

"The human world has become a kind of insane sporting event, at which people threaten one another and carry on in an insane manner---something like the gladiatorial contests in ancient Rome. It is madness. And TV (ESPECIALLY FOX "NEWS" - my addition) generates and plays to that insanity.The human world of nowtime is a lunatic asylum, a soap opera of benighted psychotics.
That absurd soap opera actually controls the destiny and experience of the total world of human beings---and that benighted world drama is, in its root-disposition, totally indifferent to human life, and the world altogether.

And that life of competitive conflict has already negatively affected even the natural systems of the Earth---and it is causing, and will continue to cause terrible suffering everywhere.
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 15 February 2007 9:02:35 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
Ho Hum makes a good point that at least environmentalists care a little about future generations. Why pick greenies out, when many others care only about what they can get today?

What is the plan, Dr. Bagaric? 0.7% of Australia's GDP is about $6billion. How and where should it be spent? Will just sending food to Africa sort out all the problems? Build roads? Build schools? infrastructure? They have all been tried.

Even Bono and Bob Geldof are on the case and haven't had much success.
Posted by ericc, Thursday, 15 February 2007 9:22:04 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
"capitalist world death machine"? What planet are you on?
Posted by jeremy29, Thursday, 15 February 2007 9:23:31 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
I’m a passionate supporter of The Make Poverty History movement. I struggle every day with the fact that we live in a world where a child dies from poverty every 3 seconds, while I sit comfortably in my middle-class world of want and excess.

However, this in no way takes away from a need to take environmental issues very seriously. Why? Because when sea levels rise and climates change, it will be poverty stricken people in developing countries that suffer first and by far the most.

Mirko is right; the human race is overwhelmingly self-interested. When world wide crops start to fail, will we equally share our reduced amount with the third world, or will we hoard it for ourselves? We all know the answer to that.

Ending poverty can and must be a world wide priority, but if we don’t take drastic steps to curb global warming, the plight of developing nations is going to slip from critical to fatal very quickly.
Posted by BradA, Thursday, 15 February 2007 9:31:35 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
What about the by-products of self interest. It doesn't always lead to death. Does it?
Posted by vivy, Thursday, 15 February 2007 9:39:08 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
BradA, why do you think that world crops haven't yet started to fail. I suggest that you look at the current Australian wheat crop. Surely the writing is already on the wall.

Mirko, if we don't worry about climate change, your starving people in the overpopulated third world will continue to suffer in geometric proportions.

Some of you people need to get your heads around reality.
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 15 February 2007 10:09:24 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
Bagaric says

"...gross distortion in our ethical priorities is so acute that it can’t simply be explained as a judgment problem; something that will be corrected as we become more enlightened. It is deeper than that.

It highlights the overwhelmingly self-interested nature of the human species, which is exactly the reason that, if climate warning projections are right, we so managed to mess up the planet."

Is this what it's all about? Self-Interest? If so, then, Mr Bagaric, I suggest you have a look at that old the Club of Rome Report, "Limits to Growth". Or more pertinently, its update, available at their website. That should help you understand what appens when environmental problems compound, like interest in the bank.

And if you are interested in further examining "self-interrest", try reading "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", and/or visit the Author Perkins' website. Who is it putting money in the bank at the expense of developing nations, and how might their behaviour be explained?

One of the larger issues seems to me to be:

how do we direct market activities, theoretically driven by popular self-interest, toward globally sustainable outcomes?

I have yet to meet a greenie who is interested in unethical investment - eg forest clearing in Indonesia, or bigtime power schemes for smalltime national economies, or land mines, or nuclear weapons, etc. Same is true of many who would never call themselves Green. Few people are so selfish and careless as to cause harm to others, if they can avoid doing so.

I'd dearly love to see you write about ethical investment - perhaps your readers could benefit from your insights in this area. Perhaps you could be more influential toward the sort of changes which would benefit our global environment.

Cheers,
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 15 February 2007 10:31:37 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
While your comments regarding the attitude of the rich world to the poor world are quite accurate as far as generalisations go, your linking of this to concerns over global warming is spurious to say the least.

As for using abortion rates in Australia as evidence for a lack of concern for people in developing countries, a more irrelevant argument is hard to imagine. What about Australia's miserly and self-serving "aid" programme or its demonisation of asylum seekers, to name but two examples?

"Will sea-levels go up 18cm, 43cm or even 59cm? Is it going to get 1.1C hotter or up to 6.4C? For the perspective of net human flourishing the answer is close to immaterial."

Actually the answer is very material for the 100s of millions of people living in low-lying underdeveloped countries (the most obvious of which is Bangladesh) and indeed to every person who lacks the financial resources to adapt to the changing environmental conditions resulting from climate change.

"And finally, it’s time to consign the spurious Green mantra that people in developing nations will also benefit from curbing global warning into the non-recycling bin. In the 90 seconds that it took you to read this article 30 of them have just died. In the same time, the sea-levels haven’t risen a milli-fraction."

Are you seriously proposing this as an argument?
Posted by casualobserver, Thursday, 15 February 2007 10:55:45 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 green movement is not motivated by self interest, it is motivated by narcissism. This bunch of, generally, underperforming plodders have such a perverted sense of self worth that any goal short of complete planet salvation is beneath them.

It is the classic cop out of the mediocre who are too far off-task to achieve the kind of results that provide the affirmation rewards of ordinary men and women. So they rationalise it all to justify their failure on the basis that they are focussed on much bigger goals.

So a small contribution to improving the lot of mankind, or saving a life, or even lifting the spirits of the depressed, is not good enough for them. They have a whole planet to save. They have a desperate need to save a planet, any planet will do, even when it doesn't need saving. But save it they must, lest they sink back into a primordial sludge of their own making.
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 15 February 2007 11:51:24 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
This article makes some very good points. From the point of view of the world’s poor, a deteriorating environment may well be worth trading off for the benefits of higher economic output – secure and adequate food supplies, better health, and the chance of an education. But we in the rich countries would prefer a safe and stable environment even at the cost some of economic benefits.

Rather than presenting this as an either/or policy question or moral imperative, maybe some self-interested economics will help. As well as cutting our own emissions, if we in West are serious about encouraging the poor to cut emissions and preserve the environment we should pay them to do it. And we certainly should not link our trade or aid programs to moralistic cajoling through environmental conditions or strings.

Our moral obligation to help the world’s poor should be treated as a separate imperative to our desire to address global warming.

Just how we actually help to achieve a reduction in global poverty is another matter. Mirko seems to assume it’s as simple as raising our aid budget, but the evidence suggests it’s not that simple. William Easterly’s book (http://www.amazon.com/Elusive-Quest-Growth-Economists-Misadventures/dp/026205065X) provides a fascinating if depressing catalogue of the failures of successive Western efforts to address poverty in developing countries.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 15 February 2007 1:01:19 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
Mirko, I agree that the green movement per se has had a huge problem with focusing on the issues that really matter, instead of on symptomatic issues, reactive issues or parts of the big-picture in isolation of the rest.

Of course, the underlying issue that the green movement should have been putting the vast majority of its energy into right from earliest times is population growth.

If they’d done this, they would have had the best chance of resolving world poverty, massive environmental destruction and the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions, to mention just a few.

But instead, the greens (and all of society) have pretty much turned a blind eye to this overwhelming issue….and continue to do so.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 15 February 2007 1:01:38 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
Ludwig and Mirko - I'd be fascinated to see how a green agenda of reducing population would be consistent with utilitarian ethics. Presumably one could argue (though I’d disagree) that if there were fewer of us there’d be more per capita goods and resources to go around, so aggregate utility might be higher with fewer people. But how does one square the process of getting from here to there – posters on other threads have speculated cheerfully about the benefits of millions dying in a pandemic, for example - with seeking ‘the greatest good for the greatest number”? And what possible ethical system could set out to wilfully create such a thing?
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 15 February 2007 1:30:58 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
Thanks Mirko

Your article highlights man's selfishness and how easily we can become indignant about far lesser matters. It is refreshing to hear something a little more balanced than the GW hysteria where many are cashing in on.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 15 February 2007 1:54:49 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
Mirko

You disappoint me. Poverty is anthropogenic! Uncontrolled population explosions equals environmental degradation.

And unethical exploitation of our environment by the influential big boys in the unregulated, pollutant industries worldwide, in collusion with state and federal governments, is another reason.

And the "Greens" have been warning of this dire situation for decades.

I am prepared to put global warming and climate change aside and look strictly at anthropogenic carbon dioxide's effects on ocean waters.

Currently the oceans are receiving 1 million tonnes per hour of CO2. That's 10 times the natural rate.

The ocean acidity is increasing and the ph is decreasing. More than a quarter of man-made CO2 is entering our oceans where the acidity is reducing the abundance of the right chemical forms of a calcium carbonate which corals and other sea animals require to build shells and skeletons.

Acidified waters asphyxiate those marine animals which depend heavily on oxygen. Algae bacteria etc are proliferating at the expense of other marine life including coral reefs.

The equilibrium of atmospheric CO2 is completely stuffed!

The method of testing for acidity and PH is simple chemistry which can not be disputed. I even do it successfully for my garden soil!

Though you appear sceptical, surely there is an ethical requirement for authors to address the dire situation of the atmospheric and ocean pollution from the indisputable excesses of man-made emissions?

Environmentalists have never desired to see industry shut-down but they have, for decades, requested that pollutant industries cap their emissions and act responsibly.

While a few pollutant industries do cap their emissions, the "burning" question is, "Why are other big polluters resisting an ethical requirement for CO2 reductions, whilst desperately seeking authors, like yourself, to write articles supporting the status quo?"

The senior bureaucrats, attached to governmental environment agencies have been telling lies about the state of the environment for years and really deserve to be incarcerated!

A "sustainable" future, without an immediate reduction in anthropogenic CO2, will see all nations becoming hungry and poor and incapable of looking after anyone but themselves.
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 15 February 2007 2:22:40 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
This article just follows the usual plot of trying to make people feel guilty. I don't happen to be into guilt. If I do something, I don't consider it to be wrong.

The problem of the third world lies within their power to solve, and nobody else's. Japan, in the late 1940's, and China more recently, have shown the way that a third world country can haul itself out of poverty. The way is to limit population increase. Japan did that in the late 40's with a massive abortion program, and China is doing it today with its one child policy.

Underdeveloped countries that refuse to limit their populations are condemned to everlasting poverty. Since 1945 the west has poured over 1 trillion dollars of aid into the third world with no result. Is it any surprise that voters will not sanction the waste of any more money?

Utopians who dream that the third world can be brought up to first world standards by the use of foreign aid and without limiting population ignore that the resources to do this simply don't exist. For example, if the whole world lived at the standard of the USA this would require 550 million barrels of oil a day, when we are struggling to produce 80 million. In addition, even if the resources could be produced, workers in the first world would simply refuse to give them away on the scale necessary. Such a scheme would require marginal tax rates of 80%, and most people, including myself, would simply not be prepared to work under those circumstances. This is quite apart from the horrendous levels of pollution that would be caused by all that consumption. If utopians want to reduce the gap in living standards they should concentrate on cutting the living standard in the first world, particularly of the common people.

What needs to be done is that aid to third world countries must be linked to population control, and countries that refuse to limit their population should be refused all aid, both governemnt and private.
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 15 February 2007 2:40:35 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
once again perseus slumps to ridiculously implausible and inane insults that show him up to be the clueless shill that he is.

"The green movement is not motivated by self interest, it is motivated by narcissism."

Sorry mate, but only your constant, pointless uniformed opinionated bickering is motivated by narcissism.

while the writer of this piece may play at a hollow attempt to blame the green movement for the rest of the worlds problems (why stop at poverty, why not include nuclear proliferation?), you have again deliberately and predictably missed the prime motivations for what drives those within the green movement. i hate to break it to you, but its not a want for us to all live in caves or to go back to our primordial sludge.

while the right's politics forges new fake reasons to go to war with other nations, while the right's economics finds new ways of financially kicking the poorer nations while they are down and while the right's corporate heroes find yet more ways to decimate the ecosystems that ultimately support human life, the green movement is working to find ways of living within our means and maintaining as higher living standard as possible for as long as possible, not just for the next political term.

until you have something decent to say, time to go back to your saddam-hole.
Posted by julatron, Thursday, 15 February 2007 2:49:46 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
Well said, Plerdsus. Until all the world, and the poor countries in particular, reduce their populations, there is absolutely no chance that aid from the rich countries will have any effect.

The world just does not have the resources to sustain its present population. Something around a half of the current level may be OK. Until we get back to that, then climate change and poverty will not only overwhelm the poor nations, but the rich as well.

I may not be around to see it, but I expect that by half way through this century, the worlds businesses will be working to a new set of economic parameters based on survival, instead of expansion.
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 15 February 2007 3:35:41 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
I'm with you, VK.

Perseus would not have read an officially documented pollutant industry report in his lifetime. The volume of pollutant emissions, just in this lucky country, is sufficient to cry "foul!"

And an increase in populations equals an increase in pollution!

Why breed when offspring are doomed to a life of misery and poverty where they are force-fed lethal toxins and air which has been privatised and polluted by grasping, dirty industries?

Ahh.... ignorance is bliss!

Or is Perseus merely concerned with his investments and his share portfolio?
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 15 February 2007 3:57:19 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
Mirko Bagaric is to be commended for wanting to save the planet's downtrodden. But via cash?
A more constructive roadmap had been plotted 13 years ago by those he condemns. The article is a display of gormless ignorance, both in biology and recent history.

The stock of this planet's natural capital is being depleted, catering for 6.5 billion people - most evidently in areas of disenfranchised populations of high density. Yet, even as the needs of present numbers remain unfulfilled, population steadily increases at about 1.3% (doubling time a half-century).

Bagaric, in a cocoon of intemperance, can't see this monstrous hurdle. Why? It was universally recognised in 1994 that women everywhere should be emancipated - to make their own choice regarding pregnancy. Religious bigotry has fought hard against that: from the Vatican, and the fundamentalist Christian lobby in the US, the mad Mullahs also. Bigotry suggesting sperm, egg, zygote have superior rights to the lowly female incubator. Bagarac perhaps concurs?

Without such bigotry, the underdeveloped world might have a chance: every child wanted, with parents having adequate time and resources to devote to it. Better than now, where over-numerous children are confronted by ravages of water-borne disease, malnutrition, and warfare. Maybe a better chance for the woman-child now facing forced marriage, immaturely child-bearing with resultant fistula problems condemning her to be outcast.

If it weren't for ignorance, Bagarac would have addressed the underlying cause of global warming - our economic system's demand for everlasting growth. For two hundred years it has been expanding at an increasing rate. It depended on an escalating rate of resource use and waste accumulation. The IPCC declares the waste is affecting climate - believable to all but the most dedicated skeptics. Such climate change is going to disaffect, most of all, the most impoverished of the world's communities. Yet the economic system dictated for everyone demands continuing growth (4% or better).

If Bagarac could have put in a plug for a healthy no-growth economy, and stabilised human numbers, there would have been some logic in the article.
Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 15 February 2007 8:14:41 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
“I'd be fascinated to see how a green agenda of reducing population would be consistent with utilitarian ethics.”

Rhian, if there had been a concerted effort to halt the population explosion, starting off in the days of Thomas Malthus (around 1800) or perhaps even as late as the 1960s, then we would not be talking about the urgent need for population stabilization or reduction in 2007. Now it is just impossible to do it to a meaningful extent without severely draconian measures.

It is this unfettered human expansion that has fairly and squarely gone against the ethical theory of utilitarianism - achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

A true utilitarian would realise that the support mechanisms for a high quality of life are limited, or have a limited rate of resource provision before their renewability gets reduced.

A true utilitarian would be a total supporter of sustainability, and would cry out against the constant increase in population, that stresses the environment and resource base to the extent of greatly reducing or keeping miserably low the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people.

A true utilitarian would a true environmentalist.

I would also say that a true economist would be an arch environmentalist, and that any economist that follows the perverted notion of never-ending growth is nothing more than a very poor pseudoeconomist.

The same logic applies to politicians, and to all responsible citizens.

So, we can’t just point the finger and the greens for failing to indulge in a holistic perspective.

The notion of the greatest good for the greatest number must take into account the ongoing maintenance of that ‘good’. And this means that the ‘greatest number’ must be within the sustainable limits of the resource base and of the environment to absorb the overall impacts.

Those that have allowed the situation to get where it is today must have their ethics seriously questioned, including many who think of themselves as highly ethical. If we aren’t very strongly fighting for sustainability, then there is something seriously wrong with our ethics.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 15 February 2007 9:45:15 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
Mirko seems to be one of those people who thinks by writing. With respect to what he publishes at OLO I usually quite enjoy reading his ideas. However, sometimes I wonder why he chooses to publish his more asinine thoughts in as public a forum as this. He has an academic reputation to protect, and this truly crappy piece does nothing to enhance it.

As a libertarian, I often find myself agreeing with him, but in this article I think that he reveals himself as astonishingly ignorant about the actual environments ("sands") in which the developing world's populations live.

His gratuitous anti-Green diatribe only emphasises his prejudice against environmentalists. The Greens internationally have long been the only political party to have been simultaneously concerned both with global warming and the ongoing effects of environmental depradation on people in the developing world. A cursory examination of any official Greens website from around the world would readily attest to this, so one wonders why the good lawyer didn't bother to check his facts - even cursorily.

I think Mirko ought to exercise a little more discretion in publishing his more erratic thoughts in public forums such as this - else his professional credibility must surely be brought into question.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 15 February 2007 10:12:52 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
Plerdsus for Prime Minister!
“What needs to be done is that aid to third world countries must be linked to population control, and countries that refuse to limit their population should be refused all aid, both government and private”

And Ludwig & Colinsett for front-bench ministers.

Someone mentioned earlier Bono & Bod Geldoff ( leading lights associated with the aid bandwagon).Perhaps we can learn more from watching the antics of these paragons of charity than we can by listening to their sermons. While lecturing the west about the need to share & give, Bono travels the world like a jetsetter, has expensive housing ( how disproportionate must be his consumption & contribution to green house gasses) & if recent reports in the press are to be believed , avoids paying tax big time .While Geldoff, again if the news reports are to believed, has trouble sharing royalties with his former band members
Posted by Horus, Friday, 16 February 2007 4:22:18 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
Mirko certainly is a thought-provoking writer. He says things I find really insightful, & others that are completely off-the-chart loopy. But that's what makes him interesting. How boring (& un-realistic) it would be if there was only ONE point of view that was the "defining point of view" that was shared by all "smart" people (which is the definition of PC). Keep up the good work OLO.

His point about abortion & the much touted concern for the "rights of future generations" is an interesting one.

Re Africa. Never-ending aid is just sending good money after bad. The amount sent already should have been more than sufficient to eradicate their poverty troubles. Instead it has made a privileged few obscenely rich, swelled thousands of swiss accounts & funded countless wars. I refuse to fund more of that. The only way it will be used wisely is if the west oversees it. But of course that would be 'racist' (even though western countries are the most multicultural, multi-coloured & tolerant in the world, but that's another story).

Re population control in Africa, that will never happen unless there is first responsible government & political stablity there. Don't hold your breath. But given that rational economic growth theorists and the greens both want Africa to rein in their populations, who knows?

Personally, not concerned over CO2 levels. For a start, don't believe the global warming hype (0.7C rise in the last 150 years is the 'crisis'). What's much more concerning is massive falls in biodiversity and the pollution issue. The west will fix the latter & like everything else, we will export our clean technology to the rest of the world to solve that one. But biodiversity lost can never be regained. That's what we need to focus on.

Absolutely, Horus. Always sceptical of the very wealthy moralisers. It's a brilliant public relations exercise for them. Money can't buy that kind of publicity. When they start to give their millions away, like Gates, that's when I'll listen to them. Until then, they can +&^%$ off.
Posted by TNT, Friday, 16 February 2007 6:49:29 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
has anyone stopped to think for a second that the nations with the fastest population growth are NOT the ones with the hungriest uptake of the worlds resources and energy?

before we start pointing the finger at developing nations population growth being the root cause of all of our environmental degredation, some of the wilfully ignorant posters above might want to brush up on some facts, in that its the developed world using more than their fair share of resources and energy, and subsequently damaging the environment of developed nations (with less environmental protection legislation) in feeding this relentless hunger.

For example: the US with 5% of the worlds population, consumes approx 25% of the worlds resources and omits roughly 25% of the worlds CO2. China, with about 20% of the worlds population, uses less than the US. Australia, with 0.5% of the world population omits 2% of the worlds emissions. Europe, although nearly twice as efficient as the US/Aust for emissions, also consumes far more that its fair share, and thus what is left to go round in the poorer nations is sweet FA.

to even hint that concern for the state of the environment is a root cause of world poverty is either utter stupidity in the extreme, or a deliberate obfuscation with a vested interest in mind, and i cant but wonder which of these can best be leved at the author of this rubbish economic/sociology piece.
Posted by julatron, Friday, 16 February 2007 9:43:23 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
i'll ignore the author’s deeply offensive and gratuitous remarks about abortion rates in australia and instead comment only on the points relevant to his discussion.

how he could not see the connection between environmental degradation and poverty is incomprehensible. we can point to countless examples throughout history where (generally profit driven) environmental damage has directly driven communities that had previously been subsisting into profound poverty. the ‘green revolution’ of the 70s is a good example.

but climate change is a much more powerful one. countries relying on primary production are FAR more vulnerable to climate change than we in richer countries, where services and manufacturing make up a higher proportion of our GDP.

bagaric’s point that the extreme poverty of the majority of the world is a scandal is absolutely true. but to think that downplaying the significance of climate change is any way to address this absurd.

people who are already suffering stand to lose even more when droughts and floods render agriculture unviable.
when ocean acidification wipes out fisheries providing the staple diet of millions.
when disease rates shift and increase as we know malaria will.
when impoverished island states and coastal communities become climate refugees, reliant on other countries to take them in – as is ALREADY happening now in neighbouring pacific islands, due to sea level rise combining with more severe coastal storms and the like destroying infrastructure beyond repair.

environmentalists continually acknowledge that developing countries must increase their standard of living before they can possibly be expected to share environmental concerns of richer nations. it is the very premise in the kyoto protocol that has caused our own govt to reject it. a small amount of research by the author would uncover work such as friends of the earth’s climate justice campaign – which specifically looks at how climate change will affect the world’s poorest, and says that we have a moral imperative to address this. if the author is genuine, he will join the call for our govt to recognise such refugees and take responsibility for our role in their plight.
Posted by julowi, Friday, 16 February 2007 11:00:28 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
Mirko. Thanks again, but I really can't see the sense of your tying green action to third world problems. Nevertheless, your article has my synapsis overloaded with traffic.

Global warming, the current water shortages and all the dire warnings have probably alerted people that, to quote, Rancitas: "The third world is just around the corner" or "There but for the grace of God (and some serious policy changes) go I."

I think the publicity will give even the dullest person more a sense of the dire circumstances which these third world folks try to exist under. Then we may not feel so resistant to making a few changes. If we make these changes, then maybe there will be less harm done to the already struggling countries.

You seem to think that because the third world is in such a situation that it can't get worse. The third world is part of this world and will be affected by global warming even though it can't afford to contribute to the warming. Certainly not fair that they should further suffer because of our mismanagement of the environment. But this is something the greens have reminded us of for yonks.

The Australian Greenhouse office lists the greenhouse emissions
from the average Aussie home as

Travel 34%
Water Heating 16%
Electronic appliances 15%
Fridge freezer 9%
Home heating/cooling
Lights 5%
Waste 5%
Cooking 3%
Clothes washing/dishwasher 2%

I question why the powers-that-be are targeting the emissions from power stations (because their mates in the establishment stand to make a fortune from nuclear?) while not hardly mentioning a major contributor - the motor car and air flights.

That the government has allowed and continues to allow this industry to go on producing cars (even though there are thousands of good vehicles stored in used car lots) and has apparently become dependant on its continuation shows how poorly the economy and future is managed.

It’s as dumb as the Chinese Government’s population control combined with the male-dominated households’ insistence of having male babys. There are some areas where there are (eight boys to one girl).
Posted by ronnie peters, Friday, 16 February 2007 12:09:18 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
is there nothing on this earth this man does not venture an opinion on?
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 16 February 2007 12:12:14 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
That certain utilitarians are usually selective in who endures the consequences to reach an end never ceases to amaze me.

Militarism and warfare contribute to global warming. Here Mirko targets householders for having life-enhancing products and necessities while not mentioning the billions wasted on militarism.

The USA thinks utilitarian when it comes to Iraq but its utilitarian thinking means the consequences must be endured by the Iraqi people caught in the conflict; the USA’s population (especially the poor) whose resources are being redirected to impose “democracy” and service its military campaign; and the environment suffers because resources could be redirected in to more positive ventures and yet all this waste is based on very doubtful ends –stopping terrorism. This thinking is a bit like a publican poking a big black dog for few years with a walking stick and then let it off the leash in the bar on pensioners’ day. Why not let Iraq sort it themselves? The savings could be redirected into other positive things and you’d still have enough left over to build a hospital, on every street corner in Iraq.

Or downsize the US military to a truly defensive force? Oh wait a minute the US economy is driven by all this killing and militarism. What thinking let USA’s economy get into to that dire situation? (Having said that I think that if Bush doesn’t withdraw he must send troops to support the others already there - anything else would be a betrayal of those soldiers .)

Also what about the third world within the first world? In Atlanta there are streets one block from the USA’s two great blacks - where Martin Luther King lived and near the first Coca Cola factory - where people set up house. A mate dashed into a public toilet and was told: “Knock before you come into my house. …” Yes the population has developed a coping strategy, or rationalisation, for this, “They need to get off their ass etc.” “They’re jus’ losers.” If these human beings get sick - they die. Just like in the third world.
Posted by ronnie peters, Friday, 16 February 2007 12:25:34 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
Re Julowi,

1) “Its the developed world using more than their fair share of
resources and energy”

I LOVE this argument:
The US/Aust/The-West-generally are often said to be using more than their ‘fair share’.
But how do they determine what is anyone’s ‘fair share’.
They divide POPULATION NUMBERS by known resources.

The reckoning being - if you have more children - you are in FAIRNESS entitled to a greater share of the worlds resources.
( After that you can understand why many of the poorer countries are going at hammer & tongs trying to increase their numbers!)

And there is a kindred argument which is often trotted out as well, which goes like this :
Too many resources are being spent extending the life of elderly westerns - the money could be better spent tending to the worlds poor. ( This is mind you, despite the fact that most medical funding, research & discoveries are by the west!) .

2) “climate change will affect the world’s poorest”
Climate change is likely to affects the poorest most – not because they are unfairly single-out – but because they have over populated their living space.

To try & cope with the demand of their burgeoning populations the poorer nations have expanded into marginal lands which will be the first & worst to suffer in any downturn .

Even western nations have such marginal zones or danger zones –
But most western nations either don’t develop them, or if they do, do not expect the rest of the world come & bail them out, each time there’s a disaster/collapse .
Posted by Horus, Friday, 16 February 2007 7:54:35 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
Julatron, who is pointing the finger at developing nations or saying that population growth is the root cause of all our environmental degradation?

The essence of the concern about population growth is that it is the big factor that gets left out all the time.

Even now, with escalating resource issues in Australia and around the world, the focus is almost entirely on reducing per-capita consumption and developing more efficient and alternative technologies…. while just letting the rate of expansion continue unabated.

I=PAT

Overall impact on the environment and resource base = Population size x Affluence or per-capita consumption and waste production x Technological efficiency.

So please, don’t think of those who express population or continuous growth concerns as being one-eyed. We are trying to put the population factor into perspective. Clearly it is those who don’t consider population issues who are thinking in an unbalanced manner.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 16 February 2007 8:09:21 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
I have always considered the population argument to be completely racist. We are clever enough to address social imbalances (wether it be in terms of power and/or resources) without having to digress to arguments regarding reproduction (especially when the people who we are trying to regulate, also happen to be by and large not white). How is this any different from racial cleansing and genocidal rationales ? Furthermore, these simple statistical equations do not take into consideration cultural variations. The issue extends far beyond the quantity of resources available, different cultures USE resources differently. We attach a variety of symbolic and spiritual meanings to resources, so what may seem like trash to one man, may in fact be treasure to another (and offcourse vice versa). Economy of thought on this issue is really not appropriate.
Posted by vivy, Saturday, 17 February 2007 2:08:54 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 educated forthright women of Italy and Spain, and their sisters elsewhere who have achieved liberation from the tryanny of supression by religious and social fanatics, have taken action!
With their new-found freedom, they make their own determination as to the number of children they bear.
In the case of Italy and Spain, freed from the humbug of Papal sexual aberration, they choose less than two children. The average for both countries is about 1.2. For all of Europe the choice is less than two.
The fundamentalist Christian Southern Baptists of the USA, along with the Vatican, have been both dictatorial and effective in preventing disenfranchised women in most developing countries from having any choice as to how many children they bear.
Should they be bathed in the stink of the odious red herring, "racist"! Should they? Or, maybe they deserve some other, more appropriate rather than fashionable, epithet for their appalling cruelty?
Posted by colinsett, Saturday, 17 February 2007 6:55:11 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
Ho Hum “Meanwhile the capitalist world death machine with its drive to total power and control IS grinding everything to rubble!

How do you even begin to stop a machine that has such seemingly unstoppable momentum?”

Ha Ha what a laugh. “Capitalist World Death Machine”

A good test of how Capitalism rates as a “Death Machine” is to compare it to an alternative and test the history of treatment of its own citizenry and the environment.

When I look at the simple statistics of how many deaths can be laid at the feet of the incumbent governments in both models, I find the death count to suggest the “Capitalist World Death Machine” is a far less brutal a piece of equipment than the “Socialist Gulag Tank”.

The socialist death count runs into millions and millions and the environmental disasters would compare

Three Mile Island to Chernobyl and
The Great Lakes to The Sea of Aral.

All of which suggests we better keep the “Capitalist World Death Machine” well oiled and working, because the only constructed alternative (at world domination level) looks like a pretty scary proposition.

As has been said before by many, any environmental strategy which does not recognize and work toward solving the burgeoning world population explosion is either a fraud or the ramblings of the inane.

Fix population growth and you fix the problem of sustainability.
Fix the population growth and you fix the problem of environmental stress.
Oh you might cause a hiccup in economic terms with a contraction of demand, rather than an ever increasing demand for everything but such an economic outcome is better to the abyss of non-sustainable population and its impact on resource denigration.

Oh and Global warming, reduce the human population and you reduce the impact of human activity on climate change, which should please the sack-cloth and ashes brigade.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 17 February 2007 7:43:11 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
Vivy, if you have a careful look at previous postings on world population control, you will find that the majority have not singled out the poor nations as being the only ones to whom population controls should apply. If this is the impression that you have, then please let me corect that. It just so happens, that many of the richer nations are already in the population reduction mode, so that it generally only remains for the poorer ones to follow suit.

The challenge is for the economists in the rich nations to devise a suitable model to sustain negative growth, without causing too great a depression. Not an easy task as the Japanese have found out.
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 17 February 2007 7:49:48 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
VK3AUU,
I take your point that population control issues are considered to apply to poor and wealthy nations. I am very concerned however that we have not asked the people of these poorer nations what they want to sacrifice in order to alleviate their poverty. This issue is about values and what is considered a priority. I for one am deeply saddened by the fact that so many people in the first world have chosen not to have children. We have designed social arrangements that are anti-children, with family unfriendly workplaces, and a social attitude associating notions of burden with child rearing. We have no right to impose our western ideas of economic priorities on others, especially given that they are so desperately in need of aid. The power imbalance between first world and third world must be addressed sensitively and diplomatically. Telling people to "stop breeding" or we will let you starve is offensive to say the least!
Posted by vivy, Saturday, 17 February 2007 9:14:23 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
You are still missing the point. If we don't get world population and therefore world overuse of resources down, then those people are going to starve anyway. Neither they nor us will have any choice in the matter.
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 17 February 2007 9:29:58 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
vk3

It is yourself and col who seem to be missing the point re population. If there is any fraud being perpetrated it is the lie of society disintegrating without population growth. Where is the evidence for a collapse of living standards if the population declines? In the case of the plague in Europe, the result was peace and prosperity for the common man and the death of feudalism. Perhaps population growth advocates should look at the feudal power structures in parts of the world where fecundity and overpopulation are rife, before lamenting the developed world's reluctance to jump into the same oblivion. At least people in the developed world dont feel compelled to sell their kids into slavery in order to pay off a few debts.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 17 February 2007 10:52:59 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
Fester “It is yourself and col who seem to be missing the point re population. If there is any fraud being perpetrated it is the lie of society disintegrating without population growth.”

I would normally thank people for putting words in my mouth, it saves me the bother of doing it myself, except

To quote my post exactly “Oh you might cause a hiccup in economic terms with a contraction of demand,” is a statement which in no way suggests

“social disintegration” as an outcome of population decline or containment (the alternatives to “population growth”)’,

So I will accept, your apology and your climbdown that I “Lied” about anything.

As for the general topic of “population explosions”. The fallacy that undeveloped nations are somehow less responsible for population growth than developed nations is a complete nonsense. We are all on one planet. Undeveloped nations have not been held back by developed nations neither now nor in the recent past.
Undeveloped nations have benefited from the energy and innovation of disease control systems created by developed nations and improved / more productive crops researched by developed nations etc. but undeveloped nations are no longer colonies, they are autonomous states and “population control” is their responsibility, the same way population control is the responsibility of developed nations.

The same should apply and is the patent defect in Kyoto.

As for “The challenge is for the economists in the rich nations to devise a suitable model to sustain negative growth, without causing too great a depression.”

Economists have never “devised” anything.
They merely theorize, measure and attempt, crudely, to rationalize the social impact of what others “devise”; where “others” are the trillions of transactions which build up to produce a national economy and international trade.

By the time economists get around to understanding what is going on it will be too late. The Stern Report and like are merely the early 21st century rehash of Malthus's 19th century anxieties.

No wonder Carlyle called economics the “dismal science”, especially when it is really an “art”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 18 February 2007 8:54:45 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 more we give ,the more the population problem worsens.No none has yet mentioned birth control as the solution to our woes.Too many poeple cheapens human endeavour and thus we will continue to see our jobs exported to third world depravity.There is no nobility in suffering.

As energy and resources become scarcer due to over population,so will our living standards diminish.The equation is very simple and in a finite world,we have ignored it at our peril.
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 18 February 2007 10:17:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PS Col,I purposely did not read other comments till now.Great minds perhaps?
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 18 February 2007 10:25:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps this is a question about the value of human labour, rather than a question about population. The developed world has benefited from the plight of the developing world. The wealth we enjoy, which we consider crucial for creating the mental / social space required to discover and innovate, is largely due to the fact that we are permitted to exploit developing nations. This is not an "artistic" description of reality, this is a scientific fact. You cannot have "more" without denying someone else. Having said that, we need to also look at cultural beliefs and associations to understand the exact nature of the problem (and lets not take for granted that some people suggest that there is no problem). Some people need "less" in order to create, survive etc. Some people may even deteriorate if given "too much". There is room for scientific analysis in this discussion, for understanding of human behaviour, health and environment. But it is not a simple equation.
Posted by vivy, Monday, 19 February 2007 6:15:05 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
Vivy,
Let us not forget that a goodly number of these now underdeveloped countries were once either themselves powerful (indigenous) entities/empires or parts of powerful (indigenous) entities which ruled over & exploited others (including parts of the now developed world).So they too, at one stage or other, benefited greatly form others labours .(if we are talking of making amends/giving credit where it is due - we need to factor that in)

And lets also not forgot how much the undeveloped world has in the past & still in the present continues to benefit from the developed worlds handouts- technology /medicines/education etc etc …

In fairness - some former undeveloped entities have picked up the ball & run with it, turning things around , others continue to wallow in corruption & maintain a cargo cult mentality.

When all is said & done, the undeveloped worlds plight has more to do with bad management & bad governing principles than exploitation or unfairness .
Posted by Horus, Monday, 19 February 2007 7:11:19 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
Horus,
You hit the nail right on the head. This is precisely where cultural issues join the debate. I prefer tennis, you clearly enjoy football, and most of my friends like cricket.
Posted by vivy, Monday, 19 February 2007 7:38:16 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 Koyoto protocol made no demands of developing nations, yet those that signed up were able to trade in carbon credits. Effectively, the developing world was able to receive only the benefits of Koyoto.

In practical terms a developing country can plant a forest (a carbon sink) and real dollars are returned.*

Mirko Bagaric's argument is entirely disproven.

(*Such a source of income is denied to Australians, even though we meet the targets.)
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 19 February 2007 8:32:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Concrete proof of this is that we live in a community where the only post-womb environment that is experienced by one in four embryos is the bottom of an abortionist’s bucket. This equates to approximately 90,000 future people being exterminated annually in Australia, normally for the economic convenience of the mother."

I think it is the paragraph above that would really highlight just how much of a whack-job this guy is.

Could anyone REALLY be so insulated from the rea world to believe that women have abortions for their 'economic convenience'? This suggestion would have to be one of the most disgusting, appalling things i have ever read on this forum. What's the bet that the author also lays blame for single mothers at the feet of the women. keep these kind of crap opinions to talk-back slosh fests, not where intelligent discussion is meant to take place.
Posted by julatron, Monday, 19 February 2007 9:21:26 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
Vivy, I'm sorry to get into you again, but cultural issues will have very little place in the survival of the human race if the current rate of population increase world wide is not reversed and we have used up all the available resources. Perhaps by then, the Catholic church will have recognized the error of its teachings about birth control.

Col Rouge, your point about economics being an art rather than a science is almost correct, but it would be interesting to see how the games theories of Nobel laureate John Forbes Nash Jr. fit into this discussion.

I remember my lecturer pointing out that what was the answer to last year's question was not always the solution to today's question as the economic environment is very dynamic, similar to a game, hence the reference to Nash.
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 19 February 2007 10:21:43 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
Arjay, “The more we give ,the more the population problem worsens.”

It seems to me we have socialists who have seen their universalist aspirations fall to dust. Now they work to undermine the "pursuit of excellence" by making up rules to restrain the developed through imposing stupid distinctions and responsibilities on them which do not apply to the less competent under developed nations.

The “right to life on earth” is a competitive process with winners and losers and the rules for survival of the fittest apply equally to the human race as it does to lower orders, the better we will all be, especially since we need to reduce global population.

David Latimer “The Koyoto protocol made no demands of developing nations, yet those that signed up were able to trade in carbon credits.”

Oh pleased you bring up the topic of carbon trading again.

I offered to debate the topic on another thread but you slunk away from it.

Maybe discuss it further here?

We can start with how does anyone accurately and reliably measure carbon output and more importantly, prevent the abuse of mythical carbon credits and debits polluting the process. Enron found ways to corrupt accounting processes, I am absolutely certain abuses of an “ethereal market” will abound within a year of its establishment, although it may take 10 years to discover massive fraud.

If “Effectively, the developing world was able to receive only the benefits of Koyoto.”

Who “pays” for those “benefits” ?

three guesses,

hint arrange the following words in the right order “nations developed the of populations“

VK3AUU “Col Rouge, your point about economics being an art rather than a science is almost correct, but it would be interesting to see how the games theories of Nobel laureate John Forbes Nash Jr. fit into this discussion.”

Oh Nash was inspired, and doubtless assisted in his analysis by the other personalities rolling around in his head.

Take any two economist and you will end up with at least three competing theories on any topic you care to name. Nash could achieve that all by himself.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 19 February 2007 4:18:37 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
The bravado of Col Rouge is boundless, but I'll ignore the silly personal remarks.

Enron found a way to corrupt accounting processes but they did it through corruption, not by following the rules of accounting. The accounting company that overlooked the fraud is out of business.

Where trading systems are in place, a carbon credit no more mythical than a government bond or an electronic transaction.

The people who pay for the benefits are those countries who are significantly polluting the atmosphere. And yes, these are the developed nations.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 6:27:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It might be germaine to point out that the carbon trading scheme in the EU has virtually collapsed in the past few days.
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 7:15:43 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 might be germaine to point out that the carbon trading scheme in the EU has virtually collapsed in the past few days.
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 7:15:43 PM
"

Germaine who? Who did point this out besides you? Or did you mean germane?

A link or two would be interesting, here - thanks.

Overall, I'm surprised at the blinkered view most folks are taking regarding the Causes of Our Ills. Human numbers are but one part of a global system which is out of balance.

Have a look at the Wikipedia article on the Club of Rome's report on Limits to Growth:

"Five variables were examined in the original model, on the assumption that exponential growth accurately described their patterns of increase. These variables are: world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion. The authors intended to explore the possibility of a sustainable feedback pattern which would be achieved by altering growth trends among the five variables."

All 5 aspects interact. To focus on one only is to mistake a pushbike for a Harley. To address one crisis only, without considering causal links (and thus feedback patterns) to and from other variables, is like trying to kickstart the pushbike.

Hey, Baggy, where is your article on Environmental Ethics and Ethical Investment? Rev up your Harley, old son!
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 2:59:05 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
David Latimer “The bravado of Col Rouge is boundless, but I'll ignore the silly personal remarks.”
Big of you to ignore how you “slunk away “

“Enron found a way to corrupt accounting processes but they did it through corruption, not by following the rules of accounting. The accounting company that overlooked the fraud is out of business.”

And Carbon trading, through lack of reliable measurement lacks an accounting basis.

“Where trading systems are in place, a carbon credit no more mythical than a government bond or an electronic transaction.”

That is what the signatories to the original charter of the League of Nations thought too, until Hitler f**ked over their system and it was a bit late them.

First principal of responsible management, “if you cannot measure it you cannot manage it”. Carbon trading can have all the “system” you like but it will remain a crock because it cannot be accurately or reasonably measured and those measurements audited.

Different to the number of government bonds or electronic transactions, “carbon emissions” will remain an ethereal assumption based on nebulous measurement and no basis for a quantified transaction
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 12:15:51 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
Would that I could be so certain as Mr Rouge.

I'm hoping to read a dissertation from him about why the bumblebee cannot fly. Certainly its aerodynamics are most unorthodox, and I am not sure we have yet identified the necessary and sufficient parameters involved; then, of course, there is the problem of precise and reproducible measurement!

Instead of complaining about all the things which either don't work, or shouldn't, why not focus on the challenge of expressing one's environmental ethics through the free market, by encouraging stockholders and other investors to put their money where their mouths are?

And of course, I would love to hear the author of the article comment on this pertinent topic. Perhaps he has an idea or two on ethical torture chambers that could offer a "friendly" investment opportunity.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 4:34:01 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
Professor Bagaric should try reading something in the area of moral philosophy that is a bit more sophisticated than Peter Singer's Practical Ethics. Perhaps that way he might sound like he knew what he was talking about.
Posted by matilda, Monday, 26 March 2007 4:09:31 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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