Changing the world together

[CornixPes II]

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php

There is a paragraph in the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change that sums up the stance of most of the developed nations:

"The global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible co-operation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions."

Isn't it about time we stop trying to aim for this bizarre hippie ideal that we can suddenly unite the world under one 'saving the planet' agenda? We don't seem to be able to unite about anything, so climate change is surely at the bottom of the pile. Am I the only one who thinks it's ludicrous to be spending all of this valuable time moving our mouths about how the world should 'wake up' and save the planet? In reality, it's only going to be a few nations who truly make the changes. We should just get on with it.

[Yootopia]

No. Everyone has to chip in.

[Grackle Rock]

No. Everyone has to chip in.

Good luck with that.

[CornixPes II]

No. Everyone has to chip in.

How do you expect this to happen when you have countries like Saudi Arabia with their petroleum and China with their factories pumping crap into the atmosphere. They're never going to change.

[Alsatian Knights]

I think most people in the government see climate change as a way to get elected and then stay there while doing absolutely nothing. Even if we do unite to stop climate change, what happens after wards? How will it effect economies? As it is now, I can only think of two reasons humanity will unite to stop anything: Alien Invasions and Hitler. Since one is unlikely and the other is presumed dead (and if not dead by now in a harmless old age) I do believe we'll be stuck throwing ICBMs and rolling tanks against each other. All the while happily running head first into a solid wall of ice caused by high CO₂ levels

[CornixPes II]

I think most people in the government see climate change as a way to get elected and then stay there while doing absolutely nothing. Even if we do unite to stop climate change, what happens after wards? How will it effect economies? As it is now, I can only think of two reasons humanity will unite to stop anything: Alien Invasions and Hitler. Since one is unlikely and the other is presumed dead (and if not dead by now in a harmless old age) I do believe we'll be stuck throwing ICBMs and rolling tanks against each other. All the while happily running head first into a solid wall of ice caused by high CO₂ levels

I agree, it probably does come down to Humanity's capacity to unite about anything. We just can't work together, and the sad result of this is going to be the destruction of our environment. We can tell China to stfu all we want, but they are still going to crap on the world.

[Alsatian Knights]

I agree, it probably does come down to Humanity's capacity to unite about anything. We just can't work together, and the sad result of this is going to be the destruction of our environment. We can tell China to stfu all we want, but they are still going to crap on the world.

I think the only way you're going to get listened to about climate change is to take a more pro-active roll in it.Like threaten to blow the crap out of China's polluting factories with ICBMs.

[CornixPes II]

I agree, it probably does come down to Humanity's capacity to unite about anything. We just can't work together, and the sad result of this is going to be the destruction of our environment. We can tell China to stfu all we want, but they are still going to crap on the world.

I think the only way you're going to get listened to about climate change is to take a more pro-active roll in it.Like threaten to blow the crap out of China's polluting factories with ICBMs.

Violence shouldn't be the answer, but maybe it's a possible future we might see. When we start blowing things up we create wars and wars create war economies which are definitely bad for the evironment. I don't really see how 'taking a pro-active role' means use violence.

[Alsatian Knights]

I agree, it probably does come down to Humanity's capacity to unite about anything. We just can't work together, and the sad result of this is going to be the destruction of our environment. We can tell China to stfu all we want, but they are still going to crap on the world.

I think the only way you're going to get listened to about climate change is to take a more pro-active roll in it.Like threaten to blow the crap out of China's polluting factories with ICBMs.

Violence shouldn't be the answer, but maybe it's a possible future we might see. When we start blowing things up we create wars and wars create war economies which are definitely bad for the evironment. I don't really see how 'taking a pro-active role' means use violence.

Sometimes in order to clean up a mess you have to make a bigger mess, but only as a last resort. However, I think that we are at that last resort. We've tried just about everything we can think of.

[CornixPes II]

I agree, it probably does come down to Humanity's capacity to unite about anything. We just can't work together, and the sad result of this is going to be the destruction of our environment. We can tell China to stfu all we want, but they are still going to crap on the world.

I think the only way you're going to get listened to about climate change is to take a more pro-active roll in it.Like threaten to blow the crap out of China's polluting factories with ICBMs.

Violence shouldn't be the answer, but maybe it's a possible future we might see. When we start blowing things up we create wars and wars create war economies which are definitely bad for the evironment. I don't really see how 'taking a pro-active role' means use violence.

Sometimes in order to clean up a mess you have to make a bigger mess, but only as a last resort. However, I think that we are at that last resort. We've tried just about everything we can think of.

I hope we are not at a last resort, but maybe you're right. But still, I highly doubt damaging a country's economy and infrastructure is going to at all help it to start being greener. If anything, it will cut corners to rebuild and make the environment worse.

[Alsatian Knights]

I hope we are not at a last resort, but maybe you're right. But still, I highly doubt damaging a country's economy and infrastructure is going to at all help it to start being greener. If anything, it will cut corners to rebuild and make the environment worse.

You probably are right, I don't hope we are at a last resort either, maybe I place to much on the hope that nations will grow brains.

[CornixPes II]

I hope we are not at a last resort, but maybe you're right. But still, I highly doubt damaging a country's economy and infrastructure is going to at all help it to start being greener. If anything, it will cut corners to rebuild and make the environment worse.

You probably are right, I don't hope we are at a last resort either, maybe I place to much on the hope that nations will grow brains.

I think they do have brains, it's just that half of them don't care. It's all about money really. If you are going to get a whole country to be greener, you have to make economic sacrifices, at least in the outset. Nobody is willing to do that. The UN seems to just assume that the nations of the world will just unite and throw their money out of the window for benefits that they will not see in the short-term.

[Greed and Death]

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php

There is a paragraph in the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change that sums up the stance of most of the developed nations:

"The global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible co-operation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions."

Isn't it about time we stop trying to aim for this bizarre hippie ideal that we can suddenly unite the world under one 'saving the planet' agenda? We don't seem to be able to unite about anything, so climate change is surely at the bottom of the pile. Am I the only one who thinks it's ludicrous to be spending all of this valuable time moving our mouths about how the world should 'wake up' and save the planet? In reality, it's only going to be a few nations who truly make the changes. We should just get on with it.

Lets instead change it to whoever uses up the planet the least loses.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php

There is a paragraph in the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change that sums up the stance of most of the developed nations:

"The global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible co-operation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions."

Isn't it about time we stop trying to aim for this bizarre hippie ideal that we can suddenly unite the world under one 'saving the planet' agenda? We don't seem to be able to unite about anything, so climate change is surely at the bottom of the pile. Am I the only one who thinks it's ludicrous to be spending all of this valuable time moving our mouths about how the world should 'wake up' and save the planet? In reality, it's only going to be a few nations who truly make the changes. We should just get on with it.

We should just get on with it, yes.

If "we" build nuclear power plants to supplant coal-burners, we will make that technology cheaper. If "we" build thermosolar plants instead, we will make that technology cheaper. If "we" somehow make the copious resource of coal emissions-neutral, we will make clean coal cheaper (er, break-even anyway.)

Implementation does not simply follow "invention." Invention, and improvement of existing technology, follows implementation too. To be implemented, a technology must be economically viable. Once there is a market in it, and competition in that market, there is money to be made by invention. Invention, and improvement, is promoted by that profit motive.

Steel, or shipping, or building construction, all demonstrate this. Putting carbon into iron makes steel, a superior material ... but it was also economical, since coal (mostly carbon) was the cheapest way to melt iron. Oil as the fuel for ships had clear advantages over coal (denser, more easily loaded, less visible smoke) but modern ships run on heavy oil which is a cheap by-product of gasoline production. And building which was once done in brick or concrete, has moved towards steel and composites mostly because they are lighter, thus requiring less transport costs, less labour or machinery on-site, and more pre-forming off-site.

None of these were laboratory inventions. The smart people who made those innovations did so within a functioning industry. They were motivated at least partly by a desire to do what was already being done, but cheaper.

These major industries demonstrate invention following the market, not the market following new 'discoveries.'

This might sound out-of-character from me. But be assured, I do see a role for government in subsidizing research, and subsidizing implementation, of desirable technology. I am NOT saying "leave it to the market." I am saying "intervene in the market, by subsidizing research, and if government turns out to have backed a loser, drop it like a hot potato. If government backed a winner, let 'er rip and tax just like the competing industries."

There is even a role for government in subsidizing the end product. But this demands more care, not to create a false market (industries which exist only to sell to government, which pays only to support the industry.)

Replicating the military-industrial complex, with a green-industrial complex, is something to avoid. While I support existing government subsidies for "green power" and renewable resource developement, I really don't want government permanently burdened, and the market permanently distorted, by a gravy-train like the industry which sells only to government: heavy arms manufacture.

These things can turn into a self-perpetuating market. Government can't cut the contracts, because it will cost jobs. Never mind that government could get out of the contract cheaper by paying every employee of the industry the same wage for life, and chuck in an eight-month holiday in the caribean for each and every one of them. A job making something useless is worth far more than that apparently.

Suckers. Bludge, I tell ya. Don't do a lick of work you don't have to. Not having any money, you won't use much oil or coal, and you can just laugh at this whole problem. Not my damn fault bro, I didn't do anything!

Yeah, it's my bedtime. But some of the earlier parts of this post might be worth a read.

[Niur]

No. Everyone has to chip in.

How do you expect this to happen when you have countries like Saudi Arabia with their petroleum and China with their factories pumping crap into the atmosphere.

One word: bombs.