CLIMATE CHANGE: FIRST DO NO HARM
Long time loyal readers will know that I am somewhat irked by the whole Climate Change subject, in that I feel hypocrisy abounds and that debate has been trampled upon in the rush to make money. This post of mine sums up this view.
I don't understand the science behind the claim that humans are responsible for the warming of the planet, but I don't understand the science that claims that humans are not responsible for it either. And so, I comment from the sidelines about the whole human circus that has grown up around the issue.
One 'argument' that always gets the blood rushing to my head is that the best option is just to throw everything we have at tackling possible human contributions to climate change, then if that doesn't prove to be the case, we have lost nothing. Well, I think that's one hell of a gamble. Don't we also need to consider what's to be done either if we cannot stop global warming or if we fail to?
Well, now, here is something else to consider along those lines. Do we not also need to be careful in what we do to try and tackle human contributions to climate change less there are unintended consequences?
I'm talking, of course, about biofuel. That seemingly good idea to save the planet, which is playing a big part in the rise of food prices and driving 100 million people around the world into poverty and hunger.
So, no, we can't afford just to chuck everything we have at climate change. We never could.
5 comments:
As a real alternative to fossil fuels becomes more popular it starts to get a lot of bad press. Of course there are major issues with food production (caused to a significant extent by accelerated climate change), but equally there is enough food in the world. Most of the well informed readers of this delightful blog enjoy food that could only have been produced either by subsidies or potected by import constraints. However there appears to be a lack of political will and media agneda to tackle the root causes.
Why is that?
1) Are we as a society too unaware to realise the real issues?
2) Is this production of food and its trade not the real issue?
3) Do the movers and shakers not care?
4) Are there some rich and invasive people corporations forcing the agenda?
For my money its number 3
I'm not sure I'm quite with you anonymous.
When you talk about tackling the "root causes" are you talking about root causes of climate chagnge or problems with food prices?
And when you say biofuel is getting "bad press" are you saying that bad press is not deserved? i.e. that biofuel is *not* contributing to the current high prices of food?
Scribbles: I don't know why you bother even asking for clarification from the above weirdo.
Tell them to fuck off or delete their BBC 'Have Your Say' spEak yOUr BrAnEs shit and be done with it.
Just saying like.
I took the view that the commentator was young and could be taught. Not everyone seems to have grasped yet that I am right about everything.
I shall add to the confusion:
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
And then disappear, cackling darkly.
(Meaning I am lost too)
Post a Comment