Do you think the obsession with climate change stops people seeing the wider picture?

Question

There is a growing trend in the press and government to see environmental issues as exclusively as climate change. I am concerned that in believing that climate change is real/ fake (this is not what I am asking) makes people overlook the other issues we have to deal with. Namely:
- Lack of landfill space (estimates say we have 10 years left)
- Lack of fossil fuels (around 60 years left)
- Pollution of water and land
- Destroying of animal species
- Destroying natural habitat

Am I the only one concerned with this issue?

Thanks for your opinions.

Answer 1

I like this question, which echoes the things I have been saying elsewhere. I also like many of the answers, which demonstrate that people are neither blind nor stupid to the whims of politicians and journalists.

The more I think of environmental issues, the more convinced I am that governments and accountants are the main culprits, because it is they who have created the "centralised" society, where you, me and everyone else is obliged to scurry around like rats, picking crumbs up here and crumbs up there.

If we think outside the box a little, it would make far more sense to have a de-centralised society, with local amenities, shops, schools, post-offices etc.

Less individual travel is not just about fuel use, it is about less production, less need, less visible consumption and less consumerism; yet would scarifice nothing in terms of "quality of life."

On a purely environmental basis, we need less travel by car, and far more trucks on the road, which weight for weight of goods carried, are NINE TIMES more fuel-efficient.

If articles were better made rather than dispoable, they would be worth repairing rather than dumping in a land-fill.

There are so many things which could be done to improve our lives and reduce the constant rush of the rat-race, yet we remain trapped in the consumer cycle because accountants know that it maximises profit; whilst politicians THINK that it reduces costs, even if it doesn't.

It's good to know that not everyone is blinded by the new, and rather immature "science" of global-warming, which is full of holes and scientific anomolies.

We need thinkers rather than politicians who grab headlines or try to play "Superman."

You are not alone in being concerned with the wider issues.

Answer 2

To some extent it's a bit like schoolboy football where a pack of kids chase the ball rather than spreading out. But at least they are playing the game. Environmental issues were hardly ever mentioned in the press for years. As long as there is at least debate interest in climate then I think it helps to generate thinking about the other environmental issues. Of course there are problems of misinformation and misrepresenting scientific views which just lead to stagnation and public confusion.

The so-called 'Green movement' (I think just a bunch of concerned ordinary people using common sense about the planet) is well aware of many other important environmental issues and quietly gets on with trying to do something about them where they can, all without being headline news.

Bottom line is we don't need to be slaves to the media and the politicians have their own agendas (although they are quietly trying to sort out issues in gov departments)- a little thought and action here and there collectively makes a big difference, and the more people who have the environment on their agenda, then the more of an effect there will be.

Answer 3

It's more likely to have the opposite effect. Historically, when reforms are needed in some area, the difficult part is to get real action in some particular area. But once that happens, it creates a momentum that makes it easier to get policy changes, etc. on other aspects of the "big issue."

And this will undoubtedly be true here--especially because dealing with climate change will also address--or require addressing--most of the other environmental threats. Two examples: 1)moving to alternative energy will eliminate fossil fuel shortfalls as a potential problem--because we won't use them anymore--not on anything like the scale we do now. 2) eliminating the burning of massive amounts of coal/oil will itself drastically cut air pollution.

Answer 4

Yes! You are right!
Denudation of the whole planet Earth is ocurring at a frightening rate, as you have ably stated.
But despite environmental issues being much more than climatic variations, (unlike enlightened environmentalists like you,) the run-of-the-mill citizens tend to raise the alarm only about climatic changes--something about which ANYONE can discuss, contribute views, and show concern!
More people need to take up the other issues urgently.

Answer 5

It is only the issues that look solvable in 3-5 years burst that interest the politicians or those in the press that week. It will switch back to knives after the stabbing at the weekend.

Sadly we are all to the blame, the number of metals, in very small amounts in your computer curcuits is not exactly helping your health or the environment. We just need to make ourselves more sustainable.

Sustainable in the sense of 100s of years, not just thinking about the coming decade and oil. Sooner or later everything will run out and we will be digging up these big rubbish pits looking for certain metals etc..

Those rag and bone men, hawkers, or scrap merchants who probably came under a lot a criticism 20years ago for begging for rubbish, really were and are still doing us a big favour.

Answer 6

No, good point!

Mind you, several will absolutely be solved in time.
For example, if we use up lots of oil and gas, it will become more expensive to get it out of the ground. Therefore green energy and energy efficiency (do more with less) will become more cost-competative, and therefore, pollution will go down.

Landfill is interesting. Technology is being developed to re-use waste. I read an article in my paper this weekend that told of an installation that
1) burns waste to generate electricity
2) uses the excess heat to warm many houses
3) recoveres almost all metals and salt from the waste. Salt is reused on roads in Winter, and with current metal prices, winning back metals like aluminium, copper, iron, and even silver are generating money. Waste is said to be the riches ore on the planet.
4) What's left contains far less dangerous metals and can be used in constructions of roads and concrete; concrete made with these ashes is 20% stronger than required.

Answer 7

We're making major efforts in those areas, with considerable success. The US and China (and other countries with less generation of greenhouse gases) are making little or no effort in global warming. The rest of the world is just starting to.

And global warming is a very powerful problem, arguably having greater effects than the ones you've listed.

The others areas are important, but maybe not as important as this right now. We shouldn't ignore them, but the media actually doesn't. They just give them less emphasis, which may be appropriate.

Answer 8

They are one and the same. To fix the climate will take fixing most of the other problems. There is no technological 'magic bullet'.
That is why there is so much resistance to the idea of Global Warming, the industrialist know the issues involved.

Answer 9

I think that is the biggest danger of the global warming craze. We have genuine environmental problems that should be addressed. It is scary to think that economic policy is going to be implemented based on some very bad science which will effectively cost trillions of dollars that could be better spent solving real problems.

Answer 10

No that is entirely MAN MADE HUMANS are responsible , The electrical impulses of their dirty and obscene thoughts, via the AURA, connect with the rising smoke of pollution and affect cloud formation . We must stop polluting our minds , the contents are become an open book for all to see.