Changing the way we think and live to help the environment......?

Question

Watching David Attenborough this evening sparked a question. We, as humans, are renown for following trends, whatever they may be. We are led by example also. That being said, would we not take on board far better the necessary changes in our lives for the sake of our planet, if the people in power were to lead by example? For instance, if Government sat in parliament tomorrow and decided to take a wage cut to help pay towards the changes, would we be less likely to moan about the cost to us tax payers?

Answer 1

Bush did that a few years back,Congress and Senate voted to give themselves a raise and Bush vetoed it.Another reason why the democrats dislike him.I say that took guts.

Answer 2

The idea that the solution to global-warming has a financial answer is both stupid and wrong, because governments are not technologists, engineers or scientists. Any cost would come in the form of additional taxation, because governments are very, very bad at doing anything else.

Let's try and put this rush towards a greener future in perspective.

No less than 57% of CO2 emissions come from the surface of the sea, and 38% of CO2 emissions come from human and animal respiration. As an absolute total, only 4% of CO2 emissions come from the combined might of transport, power production, cement manufacture and general industry. So whether lifestyle change or taxation is proposed, we are really only fiddling about with 4% of CO2 emissions.

Even if credit is given, and credibility awarded to those who now cite man-made CO2 emissions as the largest cause of undeniable global-warming, they cannot lobby nature, which accounts for the majority of such emissions.

With the best intentions, people talk about re-cycling, using the car less, turning down the central-heating and higher levels of fuel tax, but this really is putting the cart before the horse, when ALL western governments (who are the ones making the running on green issues) subscribe to globalisation and the transportation of goods from half-way around the world.

If sufficient loading of taxation was introduced which might have a real effect, then that would bring global economic collapse as things stand at the moment..

There is so much hypocrisy and so many garbled statements coming from politicians, but without an alternative strategy, they are doomed to failure; and this is why.

Almost the WHOLE of the global economic system is now totally dependent upon visible consumption and the throw-away society; the engine of economic growth and economic stability in the capitalist system. Without total revolution, a global economic disaster or even wars, there is absolutely no way that the system can be changed quickly enough to have a counter effect to the problem of global-warming, and anyone who says differently, is either a liar, a fool or a knave.

The Stern report is a classic example of an economists foray into
a world of conjecture, and demonstrates one thing very convincingly; which is the fact that the author knows absolutely nothing much about anything.

If left to the politicians, the chances are they would be triumphant if they could claim a reduction in overall CO2 emissions by 10%, but that would make virtually no difference to the overall CO2 emissions: perhaps accounting for an overall reduction in global CO2 output of just 0.4% across the board.

To my mind, there IS an alternative which is infinitely more effective, a lot more attractive, and one which would not rock the economic boat too far.

Consider a simple fact of life. It is only in the past century that mass-production has replaced craftsmanship and local industry, and it is only in the past 50 years that society has created the throw-away society and the most cost-effective, lesser-quality icons of consumer-production.

Before that, people kept hold of things and handed things down to subsequent generations, because they were properly made in the first place. Repair or refurbishment was the usual way of doing things, rather than dumping things and buying entirely new.

It is this planned obsolesence which creates the constant need for manufacture, transport, distribution, re-cycling and waste-disposal management. Break THAT particular chain, and we may be on a different cycle, which incorporates all the nice green things such as conservation, lessening waste, reducing transport and reducing the profligate hunger for resources and oil.

If, instead of taxation or international agreements (which amount to very little), governments turned instead towards the longevity of products and the benefits of repair and refurbishment, then the viscous spiral of obscene over-consumption could be broken.

What it would take is international legislation which requires that all goods manufactured, should be of sufficient quality to last three or four times longer than they do at the present time, and this would have a very rapid effect; not only on the reduction of CO2 emissions, but upon the conservation of primary resources.

Does that make better sense than the blunt instrument of green taxes, or the blundering ineptitude of the Stern report; neither of which rely on the technological or scientific alternatives which can and do exist?

Mark my words: hail the man who would tax CO2 into extinction, or hope to reverse the trend of global-warming by turning to those who know nothing about technology or production-engineering, and I will show you a loser.

Answer 3

It would certainly help, as long as they lived their "public" example. Driving to Parliment (Congress in this country) in a chauffeur driven armored SUV would cloud that pay cut example greatly.

Now let us put the focus attention where it belongs: on ourselves. How many of us follow an environmentally healthy lifestyle? When are we going to set the example for our neighbors? When are you going to separate your recyclables? When am I going to ride the bus rather than drive when it is only slightly more inconvenient? Why do you waste so much water watering your lawn while it is raining (or at all, for that matter)? Why do I wash my car after Mother Nature just did a pretty decent job of it?

We need to be our own role models. Waiting for someone else to set an example when we, ourselves know what to do, is hypocritical. Most of us are guilty of this, including me. But if WE actually live it, we will demand the politicians take notice & direction from us, rather than trying to hide our hypocrisy by saying nothing.

Answer 4

No - money has very little to do with it. It doesn't cost money to be evironmentally friendly for we have to stop doing things like driving and flying etc. No matter of tree planting is going to equal it out. To make a big difference you have to make a big change and it may be that we have to ban cars and aeroplanes.

Answer 5

No people in general, not all, are to selfish. Any road that is not going to happen. Most politicians are in for the feeling of power they get enforcing their will on the proletariat and certainly not to set a good example.

Answer 6

I suggest if your question is about tax payer complaints, that you read the fair tax by Neal Boortz....

....people don't have a problem helping the environment,,, remember the aerosol sprays hurting the ozone...but it has to be backed by "real" science....

Answer 7

Great leaders cause inspiration, our leaders cause perspiration, ours. I want some of whatever you are smoking. A wonderful pipe dream that will never happen.

Answer 8

Parliament? lol. I guess if you support the queen.