Comments on: Dr Kate Rawles: Why the climate change debate has gone wrong http://www.greenbang.com/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong_2732.html Sustainable Energy Insight Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:18:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Simon Perry http://www.greenbang.com/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong_2732.html/comment-page-1#comment-2512 Simon Perry Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:08:13 +0000 http://www.greenbang.com/2732/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong/#comment-2512 Dr Kate Rawles is absolutely correct in what she lays out here. But there are some very valid comments here. @JT - what I think you're saying is that we need a pragmatic plan forward. The zillion pound question is "How do we get from here to where we need to be?". Business can indeed move faster than government if it wants to. Only with their active and real involvement can we formulate and push a plan for organised change. Dr Rawles is spot on with one observation. This is NOT about the technology. This is much larger than technology and one that must be addressed very differently than any other problem we've faced.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2512','Simon Perry'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2512','Simon Perry','Dr Kate Rawles is absolutely correct in what she lays out here. But there are some very valid comments here. @JT - what I think you\'re saying is that we need a pragmatic plan forward. The zillion pound question is \"How do we get from here to where we need to be?\". Business can indeed move faster than government if it wants to. Only with their active and real involvement can we formulate and push a plan for organised change.\r\n\r\nDr Rawles is spot on with one observation. This is NOT about the technology. This is much larger than technology and one that must be addressed very differently than any other problem we\'ve faced.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Dr Kate Rawles is absolutely correct in what she lays out here. But there are some very valid comments here. @JT – what I think you’re saying is that we need a pragmatic plan forward. The zillion pound question is “How do we get from here to where we need to be?”. Business can indeed move faster than government if it wants to. Only with their active and real involvement can we formulate and push a plan for organised change.

Dr Rawles is spot on with one observation. This is NOT about the technology. This is much larger than technology and one that must be addressed very differently than any other problem we’ve faced.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Oliver Branch http://www.greenbang.com/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong_2732.html/comment-page-1#comment-2489 Oliver Branch Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:54:05 +0000 http://www.greenbang.com/2732/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong/#comment-2489 I agree to some extent with what Fallschirmjager says regarding the natural balancers of warfare and perhaps some others such as disease, flooding and so on should also be included (and they soon will be). However, to say that it is not up to governments or society(ies) to control population is rather missing the point. I am certainly not saying that population is the only problem we have; it is not. However the fact remains that we are adding roughly 70 million people a year (after deaths) to the globe. These people consume resources and add CO2 to the atmosphere and generally put increasing pressure on a system which is already taking a beating. Put India and China´s industrial revolution into this calculation and we have huge problems. A point of interest is that if everybody on the planet were to enjoy an American lifestyle we would need 3 Planets to produce all the resources needed. And up until this point only the USA and a handful of European countries have something approaching this level of wealth. Now other huge populous nations want it too.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2489','Oliver Branch'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2489','Oliver Branch','I agree to some extent with what Fallschirmjager says regarding the natural balancers of warfare and perhaps some others such as disease, flooding and so on should also be included (and they soon will be). However, to say that it is not up to governments or society(ies) to control population is rather missing the point. I am certainly not saying that population is the only problem we have; it is not. However the fact remains that we are adding roughly 70 million people a year (after deaths) to the globe. These people consume resources and add CO2 to the atmosphere and generally put increasing pressure on a system which is already taking a beating. Put India and China´s industrial revolution into this calculation and we have huge problems. A point of interest is that if everybody on the planet were to enjoy an American lifestyle we would need 3 Planets to produce all the resources needed. And up until this point only the USA and a handful of European countries have something approaching this level of wealth. Now other huge populous nations want it too.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I agree to some extent with what Fallschirmjager says regarding the natural balancers of warfare and perhaps some others such as disease, flooding and so on should also be included (and they soon will be). However, to say that it is not up to governments or society(ies) to control population is rather missing the point. I am certainly not saying that population is the only problem we have; it is not. However the fact remains that we are adding roughly 70 million people a year (after deaths) to the globe. These people consume resources and add CO2 to the atmosphere and generally put increasing pressure on a system which is already taking a beating. Put India and China´s industrial revolution into this calculation and we have huge problems. A point of interest is that if everybody on the planet were to enjoy an American lifestyle we would need 3 Planets to produce all the resources needed. And up until this point only the USA and a handful of European countries have something approaching this level of wealth. Now other huge populous nations want it too.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Robert Frost http://www.greenbang.com/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong_2732.html/comment-page-1#comment-2415 Robert Frost Mon, 26 May 2008 19:28:53 +0000 http://www.greenbang.com/2732/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong/#comment-2415 Right on , Dr. Rawles !<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2415','Robert Frost'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2415','Robert Frost','Right on , Dr. Rawles !'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Right on , Dr. Rawles !
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Fallschirmjager http://www.greenbang.com/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong_2732.html/comment-page-1#comment-2410 Fallschirmjager Mon, 26 May 2008 14:26:02 +0000 http://www.greenbang.com/2732/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong/#comment-2410 Overpopulation is a major factor. But how to resolve it may not be up to some government/society to determine. There is always a balance hidden, overlooked or taboo to mention. In this case the balance is built into Human Nature. In the past whenever a population reached a point where natural resources were needed and/or productive land for food needed expansion the 'balancing' component of warfare raised it's head. In virtually all ancient conflicts one of the aforementioned components was the real driving force. If the 'balance' of warfare doesn't happen in our instance then who will be the governing body to determine which country, class of people, or other population group to 'thin' either by reduction of births over time or by (lets call it what it is) genocide? Who would determine which class of people would be 'culled' such as the third world countries because of their birth rates, or some other determining factor? Alternately instead of 'culling' the human herd here; wouldn't a better direction to take would be to exploit the resources within our own solar system to provide raw materials or possible off planet mining of asteroids and the like. Granted we are in the infancy stage of such an endeavor, however perhaps we need to cease looking for short term stop gap measure and really put the brain trust of the world's greatest minds to looking to a farther horizon in which to travel. And in doing so we may find better methods to deal with the current problem as we travel toward that horizon.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2410','Fallschirmjager'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2410','Fallschirmjager','Overpopulation is a major factor. But how to resolve it may not be up to some government\/society to determine. There is always a balance hidden, overlooked or taboo to mention. In this case the balance is built into Human Nature. In the past whenever a population reached a point where natural resources were needed and\/or productive land for food needed expansion the \'balancing\' component of warfare raised it\'s head. In virtually all ancient conflicts one of the aforementioned components was the real driving force. If the \'balance\' of warfare doesn\'t happen in our instance then who will be the governing body to determine which country, class of people, or other population group to \'thin\' either by reduction of births over time or by (lets call it what it is) genocide? Who would determine which class of people would be \'culled\' such as the third world countries because of their birth rates, or some other determining factor? Alternately instead of \'culling\' the human herd here; wouldn\'t a better direction to take would be to exploit the resources within our own solar system to provide raw materials or possible off planet mining of asteroids and the like. Granted we are in the infancy stage of such an endeavor, however perhaps we need to cease looking for short term stop gap measure and really put the brain trust of the world\'s greatest minds to looking to a farther horizon in which to travel. And in doing so we may find better methods to deal with the current problem as we travel toward that horizon.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Overpopulation is a major factor. But how to resolve it may not be up to some government/society to determine. There is always a balance hidden, overlooked or taboo to mention. In this case the balance is built into Human Nature. In the past whenever a population reached a point where natural resources were needed and/or productive land for food needed expansion the ‘balancing’ component of warfare raised it’s head. In virtually all ancient conflicts one of the aforementioned components was the real driving force. If the ‘balance’ of warfare doesn’t happen in our instance then who will be the governing body to determine which country, class of people, or other population group to ‘thin’ either by reduction of births over time or by (lets call it what it is) genocide? Who would determine which class of people would be ‘culled’ such as the third world countries because of their birth rates, or some other determining factor? Alternately instead of ‘culling’ the human herd here; wouldn’t a better direction to take would be to exploit the resources within our own solar system to provide raw materials or possible off planet mining of asteroids and the like. Granted we are in the infancy stage of such an endeavor, however perhaps we need to cease looking for short term stop gap measure and really put the brain trust of the world’s greatest minds to looking to a farther horizon in which to travel. And in doing so we may find better methods to deal with the current problem as we travel toward that horizon.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Oliver Branch http://www.greenbang.com/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong_2732.html/comment-page-1#comment-1932 Oliver Branch Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:01:33 +0000 http://www.greenbang.com/2732/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong/#comment-1932 I totally agree with Don Dougall. The population question is one that seems to be off limits to discuss. Humans as a species seem to take it for granted that we can have as many children as we like with no control or even debate as to how many people is enough for this planet or for a given area. For instance what if it were decided, by eminent scientist and economists, that X million people was the maximum amount of people the UK could hold regarding resources and lets face it, SPACE. What then? There is also the rather delicate socio-economic question of who is doing all the procreating. In several of the most developed and educated countries in the world, the locals arent producing because a) they would rather further their career and b) the rich western lifestyle doesn´t make one particularly fertile. Perhaps in the future we may all have to apply for a special licence to have children, and be awarded that right based on suitability, motivation etc. Sound distasteful ? Well the world will probably be a quite different place in fifty years, and we will all end up having to make sacrifices to keep this planet liveable. Some of these distasteful questions will have to be faced. Those sacrifices may even include some of those things that we consider fundamental to being humans, namely total freedom to do what we want and the freedom to procreate like rabbits! So please, can we at least put the population question on the climate change debate table alongside carbon footprints etc<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1932','Oliver Branch'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('1932','Oliver Branch','I totally agree with Don Dougall. The population question is one that seems to be off limits to discuss. Humans as a species seem to take it for granted that we can have as many children as we like with no control or even debate as to how many people is enough for this planet or for a given area. For instance what if it were decided, by eminent scientist and economists, that X million people was the maximum amount of people the UK could hold regarding resources and lets face it, SPACE. What then? There is also the rather delicate socio-economic question of who is doing all the procreating. In several of the most developed and educated countries in the world, the locals arent producing because a) they would rather further their career and b) the rich western lifestyle doesn´t make one particularly fertile. \r\nPerhaps in the future we may all have to apply for a special licence to have children, and be awarded that right based on suitability, motivation etc. Sound distasteful ? Well the world will probably be a quite different place in fifty years, and we will all end up having to make sacrifices to keep this planet liveable. Some of these distasteful questions will have to be faced. Those sacrifices may even include some of those things that we consider fundamental to being humans, namely total freedom to do what we want and the freedom to procreate like rabbits! \r\nSo please, can we at least put the population question on the climate change debate table alongside carbon footprints etc'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I totally agree with Don Dougall. The population question is one that seems to be off limits to discuss. Humans as a species seem to take it for granted that we can have as many children as we like with no control or even debate as to how many people is enough for this planet or for a given area. For instance what if it were decided, by eminent scientist and economists, that X million people was the maximum amount of people the UK could hold regarding resources and lets face it, SPACE. What then? There is also the rather delicate socio-economic question of who is doing all the procreating. In several of the most developed and educated countries in the world, the locals arent producing because a) they would rather further their career and b) the rich western lifestyle doesn´t make one particularly fertile.
Perhaps in the future we may all have to apply for a special licence to have children, and be awarded that right based on suitability, motivation etc. Sound distasteful ? Well the world will probably be a quite different place in fifty years, and we will all end up having to make sacrifices to keep this planet liveable. Some of these distasteful questions will have to be faced. Those sacrifices may even include some of those things that we consider fundamental to being humans, namely total freedom to do what we want and the freedom to procreate like rabbits!
So please, can we at least put the population question on the climate change debate table alongside carbon footprints etc
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Don Dougall http://www.greenbang.com/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong_2732.html/comment-page-1#comment-1754 Don Dougall Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:02:16 +0000 http://www.greenbang.com/2732/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong/#comment-1754 In the discussions of global warming that I have seen there is to me, a glaring ommision. Every one wrings their hands about population growth and increased consumption. No one seems to think that decreasing population increase will play a role in dealing with global warming. Why?. Why is every one scared to even talk about this major component of global warming, let alone do something about it?. It is so obvious that the smaller the population the smaller the consumption and the smaller the output of greenhouse gasses and other stuff.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1754','Don Dougall'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('1754','Don Dougall','In the discussions of global warming that I have seen there is to me, a glaring ommision. Every one wrings their hands about population growth and increased consumption. No one seems to think that decreasing population increase will play a role in dealing with global warming. Why?. Why is every one scared to even talk about this major component of global warming, let alone do something about it?. It is so obvious that the smaller the population the smaller the consumption and the smaller the output of greenhouse gasses and other stuff.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> In the discussions of global warming that I have seen there is to me, a glaring ommision. Every one wrings their hands about population growth and increased consumption. No one seems to think that decreasing population increase will play a role in dealing with global warming. Why?. Why is every one scared to even talk about this major component of global warming, let alone do something about it?. It is so obvious that the smaller the population the smaller the consumption and the smaller the output of greenhouse gasses and other stuff.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Geoff Trowbridge http://www.greenbang.com/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong_2732.html/comment-page-1#comment-1646 Geoff Trowbridge Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:03:54 +0000 http://www.greenbang.com/2732/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong/#comment-1646 Well, there are models, and an increasing number of them in the industrialized world: Ecovillages, co-housing units, new urbanist design, the local food movement, Greenways for pedestrians and bicyclists, to mention just a few.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1646','Geoff Trowbridge'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('1646','Geoff Trowbridge','Well, there are models, and an increasing number of them in the industrialized world: Ecovillages, co-housing units, new urbanist design, the local food movement, Greenways for pedestrians and bicyclists, to mention just a few.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Well, there are models, and an increasing number of them in the industrialized world: Ecovillages, co-housing units, new urbanist design, the local food movement, Greenways for pedestrians and bicyclists, to mention just a few.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Greenbang http://www.greenbang.com/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong_2732.html/comment-page-1#comment-1614 Greenbang Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:47:36 +0000 http://www.greenbang.com/2732/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong/#comment-1614 Greenbang is with you on this one JT<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1614','Greenbang'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('1614','Greenbang','Greenbang is with you on this one JT'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Greenbang is with you on this one JT
Reply – Quote
]]> By: JT http://www.greenbang.com/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong_2732.html/comment-page-1#comment-1613 JT Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:36:18 +0000 http://www.greenbang.com/2732/dr-kate-rawles-why-the-climate-change-debate-has-gone-wrong/#comment-1613 I don't disagree with anything said here - but when we talk about reducing consumerism, we HAVE to think about how this can be done in practical terms. How are we going to tackle this? How are we going to tackle the increasing consumption of developing countries as well - are you going to tell people in China not to aspire to have more clothes and shoes, whilst we have so much more than them already?<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1613','JT'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('1613','JT','I don\'t disagree with anything said here - but when we talk about reducing consumerism, we HAVE to think about how this can be done in practical terms. How are we going to tackle this? How are we going to tackle the increasing consumption of developing countries as well - are you going to tell people in China not to aspire to have more clothes and shoes, whilst we have so much more than them already?'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I don’t disagree with anything said here – but when we talk about reducing consumerism, we HAVE to think about how this can be done in practical terms. How are we going to tackle this? How are we going to tackle the increasing consumption of developing countries as well – are you going to tell people in China not to aspire to have more clothes and shoes, whilst we have so much more than them already?
Reply – Quote
]]>