Paul,

Global warming is no less a proven threat now than were CFCs in the late 1980s. The difference is that banning CFCs was relatively inexpensive, and the chemical companies who opposed it were relatively easily persuaded that it was doable. Indeed most businesses that relied on CFCs saved money by retiring their CFC-processing equipment early and finding alternative.

Fossil fuels are much bigger business than CFCs ever were, which is why the opposition to restraint on their use has been so much greater. The presence of conservative ideologues amongst the investors and PR groups associated with the fossil-fuel industry has led to persistent efforts to discredit climate science, just as it led to the suppression of competing technologies. Yet there is no reason why businesses now shackled to fossil fuels might not similarly find a move away from reliance on coal and oil to be a profitable one.

The discipline of clmate science as a whole is less exact than its individual parts, but the very same inquisitive minds and scientific methods are behind it as were responsible for discovering the rather implausible truth that CFCs, hitherto thought completely inert and rather harmless, behaved very badly together with ozone under conditions of low pressure and high UV radiation.

Ironically the Montreal ban on CFCs has had a greater effect on overall greenhouse gas levels than any subsequent specific efforts to reduce greenhouse pollution.

If you are prepared to be honest (real, genuine integrity) the answer is simple - the "closeness" of government, mass media and big business - and an education policy firmly in hoc to this unholiest of trinities.

Having billions of people, all 'competing' (rather than co-operating) for as much of the planet's resources that they can get for themselves is a ludicrous proposition which excludes/dismisses our knowledge about the Earth and the interdependent nature of ecosystems and their composite species.

Unfortunately the wealthiest people are the ones who pull the strings of government - and none of them are going to be changing their ways any day soon - whilst hiding behind the everyday, petty greed of ordinary people fuelled by advertising agencies.

One thing is for certain though - those who think they will have a quiet little corner for themselves when it all goes belly-up will be in for a very big shock. Recent floods in Britain, China and India prove that the weather will affect everyone's potential to live.

Time to stop wasting energy on so much frivolous, useless, throw away rubbish and use it for genuine, life-sustaining reasons.

A human race unable to harness it's collective intelligence to understand the perils of our over-populating, overly plundering and overly polluting the Earth is, collectively, in for a very rough ride.

Modern leaders prefer to waste our precious energy on building bigger and bigger bombs. We already KNOW how they plan to tackle the problem - just follow the money - it is always the most revealing sign of where people's *true* interests lie.

I really dont get the interpretation of the photo. There is nothing awkard at all that I can see. But then I dont see nature as a threat.

You want to see a reaction of awe to the environment - take a city slicker or someone from a hilly area out to the Hay Plains. Gets'em every time! I've had people turn downright agrophobic on me. Or maybe its a realisation of just how small the world is. When you can see the curve of the earth from where you stand you can feel the restrictions. Its funny, because you can feel that at the same time as you feel the vastness of the empty space. Personally I love it and get there as often as I can.

Kevin

Noam Chomsky says it all in a much more persuasive manner. Maybe you should stick to quoting him, with Michael Moore style gems thrown in for good measure. You could learn to spell hegemony.

The conspiracy theories fall down in one very important place. The ability of the people involved to keep such a conspiracy secret. They just aren’t clever enough.

I’ve read all of Noam Chomsky’s stuff, I understand the Marxist critiques of capitalist society. When I was young and naïve I even believed some of them. But they just don’t have the answers for me. They twist the facts to fit the theory.

Kevin, virtually every organism on the planet competes for resources. That’s Darwin’s theory on survival of the fittest. Without competition for resources, most animals would die of starvation. Competition has another benefit associated with it, progress. The whole history of man is infused with the idea of doing things better than they were done before. Of improving our lives, materially.

You said “- whilst hiding behind the everyday, petty greed of ordinary people fuelled by advertising agencies.” It sound like you don’t like people Kevin or trust their motives. So I don’t know what kind of gov’t would be of use to you. Maybe one where you made all the decisions. You either trust people to know what is best for them, or you have a dictatorship of some kind. There is no in-between. Everyone would like to be the dictator, that’s why we have a democracy.

Your effort to link current weather events to global warming are outlandish. Not even the great minds at the IPCC have tried that. But Al Gore made a good case for it? He’s a knowledgeable climate scientist isn’t he?

You need to supply evidence for your assertions about overpopulation because I have never seen anyone, even remotely creditable, making claims of that nature.

As for our leaders wasting all our energy building ever bigger bombs, all I can say is defence spending is around 2% of GDP. Hyperbole persuades no-one Kevin. Its preaching to the choir.

Paul.L

It may interest you to know that I've never read any chomsky - its easy enough to work things out for oneself - just by being aware of events as they unfold.

Maybe you should just try opening YOUR eyes and stop relying on other people's impressions.

Paul L. can you please clarify your position. Are you saying that we shouldn’t be trying to live sustainably? Is it your position that everything will work out okay and we will fix any problems that we have, when those problems really prove to be serious? If this global warming thing turns out to be real, will we just quickly knock down all the coal fired power plants and use some other power source? If too many species are facing extinction, will we quickly reinstate their habitats and allow their populations to regenerate? If too much farmland is being degraded, will we quickly stop growing food on that land and start rehabilitating the land?

You call Michael Fendley a luddite. I thought luddite’s were against technology. I didn’t see any reference to stopping technology in the article. Most things I read about environmentalists are full of new technologies like photovoltaics, hybrid cars and fuel cells, plus he uses the internet to send his message. You also call him anti-capitalist. Why? Can you be a capitalist and still want to save some resources for future generations?

Is high population growth, necessary for a high standard of living? Is a stable population against capitalist principles? Can you still do better with a stable population? Can you have progress with a stable population?

You say we aren’t overpopulated, but if all the world’s 6.6 billion people had the same standard of living as we do; oil, natural gas, and most metals would be gone in 10 years / or priced out of the everyday markets. Is that okay with you? How will we manage with 9 billion or is it better that all the poor people just stay poor or die? Since we are superior at competing for resources than all other species, is it your proposal that we just wipe out all the other species, so that they don’t bother us with that competition? Since rich people are superior at competing for resources with poor people should we just kill all the poor people?