Just out of curiosity, who believes that the whole environmental approach will succeed? I mean that we, as an entire world, will stop polluting in time to halt, or even slow, the environmental collapse of the planet? The way it is right now, today, is catastrophic, and I don't believe we will ever change that, let alone in time.
So, be honest, be realistic, what do you think personaly?

Dear Max,

Will we stop polluting in time?

I hope so. But realistically, I don't think so.
Greed is a human foible - and hard to control.
Most of us now have a lifestyle far beyond
scarcity, and as Tor Hundloe points out in his
book, "From Buddha to Bono: seeking sustainability.":

"Some of the most eminent economists, psychologists,
and philosophers have made clear what should be most
obvious: we don't become happier if life is led in
search of the next material object, in conspicuous
consumption..."

"...It will not be sustainable with an expected world
population of over nine billion. We will overshoot...
the globe's carrying capacity."

As Hundloe stresses, unless we reduce the human population
and return our ecosystems to sustainable health - we shall
suffer as will the natural world.

This is something we all know - but will we do it?
Somehow I doubt it.

I for one think the targets they are setting are flerting with danger.

If we even consider cutting emmisions by 20% we will see mass unemployment as not only will our own industry slow dramaticly, but we as a nation will become so anti-comtetetive our exports will dwindle.

How an earth can we even think we can continue to sustain our current population, let alone our predicted growth without keeping the wheels turning on our industries.

In my opinion we should be seeking ways to deal with emmisions rather than cutting them by up to 40% as some suggest.

Unless the whole world gets serious and aims for the same reduction targets, any cuts for us will cause pain for many.

Imagine for one minute if we went to China and said, "sorry, we can't fill the rest of that order as we have reached our emmisions target for the month'.

It's time we got serious and stopped kidding ourselves I think!

I'm resigned to the belief that our species will consume its way into an apocalypse.

The natural resources that have underpinned our global society have peaked and begun declining within a lifetime, but we are too addicted to luxury to address it.

All is not lost, though. There is more than enough popular support for the necessary changes, but industry won't tolerate the loss of share price, and can fairly much buy and sell our political process as it pleases. Dissenters to the growth-without-end philosophy are painted as life-despising nihilists, which fits nicely with the neo-theocratic philosophy of the contemporary Right.

What it means is that gen Y will have to save the game for us if we want anything like life as we know it to continue.

Good luck, kids.

maximillion>>Just out of curiosity,who believes that the whole environmental approach will succeed?>>that is a rather vague term please define what you mean?WHAT ENVIRON-MENTAL approach,..by who[where]..how much does it cost, who pays?

<<I mean that we,as an entire world,will stop polluting in time to halt,or even slow,the environmental collapse of the planet?>>again rather vague..[are you talking about polution,or chem trails,or poisen in our air waters,foods,medicines..or the global warning co2 farce[the poisen[we make]that gives plants life,or methane,or benzine,..name names dude

i will presume you dont care about the other polutants,rainforrest destruction,fishing the seas empty,the one BILLION starving,but are mearly talking about the con about carbon dioxide causing global warming[or is it cooling]..which computer model?by who?using what data?

if so please definitivly narrow your concerns..[or present where we really had the debate..[i sort of missed the actual proofs and actual debate,..im asking for REAL proof..[not computer modeling

i will be called a global warming/holocaust-denier..[such emotive language dosnt suit the debate]..about science being fraud to get research funding and the neo[new]tax on carbon..[that the derivitives traitors will speculate into as much as you can afford to pay

<<The way it is right now,today,is catastrophic,>>..again the right way is rather vague..PLEASE DEFINE YOUR VERSION of/the RIGHT way..[pay carbontax?,..pay/feed the primitives..[or their leaders bank accounts..lol..to not develop their impoverished under-development, so the ngo can bank the proffits while their people die?

or perhaps eat vego/stuff..[that must be grown in torn down amazon rainforrests]..just like soy currently is..[how much extra soy will need to be grown..so we can eat a salted-up/soy'meat'replacement?

see your being so vague,..please give the definitive cure we should be paying carbon tax for,..seeing as we must DO IT RIGHT NOW,TODAY

[DO WHAT TODAY?]stop breathing?..take out swine-flue shots[stop breeding..kill off half the worlds poor?..please define what YOU THINK we MUST BE doing right now

Not a chance. A collapse is inevitable.
Too many selfish, greedy people who dont care.
Nature will put us in our place.