I have to say I've been amazed by the underwhelming response to the UN's Geo-4 report, which came out a couple of days ago.
It goes way beyond climate control to consider all the issues affecting the environment, links them together and puts them in context with social issues as well.
The overwhelming conclusion is that overall, all environmental indicators are pointing downwards, and governments are not committing enough will and resources to halt the slide.
But in all seriousness, it barely made a ripple in the media, which is odd because how often does the United Nations actually agree that failure to address persistent environmental and social problems may threaten humanity’s survival?
I've come to a simple conclusion - government knows how bad it is, and rather than face it, and take the necessary steps to attempt to mitigate it, have decided to try another tactic - just run us full tilt into the buffers!
(that way, this frail house of cards of global capitalism carries on.........full tilt!)
Airport expansion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://solarwind.org.uk - a small company in Sussex sourcing, supplying, and fitting alternative energy products.
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
Make sure you read at least the Main Messages section of each of the chapters of the report. The media reports (and me!) barely skim the surface.
If you want to see how bad things really are and how they all link together, read those Main Messages.
The main download page for the report can be found here.
I thought things were fairly bad, but this report is gobsmacking in its breadth, depth and conclusions. It really should be widely read (but probably won't).
Shirlz wrote:Must admit that I haven't seen this until now - I'll have a good read of it later.
Same here. But then, I've hardly heard any news; maybe there's something in today's paper (the Sunday Herald is usually quite good at this kind of thing).
Ina
I'm a size 10, really; I wear a 20 for comfort. (Gina Yashere)
I've also been reading an interesting piece of research (published in the Environmental Research Journal) into the links between lead in paint and lead in petrol, and crime rates 20 years later on from childhood exposure.
Basically, researchers have found a significant association between exposure to lead as a baby and young child, and crime rates 20 years later.
A couple of people have been pushing this theory for a while, but teams from Pittsburgh and Fordham Universities have now completed two studies that appear to show there is a link.
So crime levels in New York have been falling not because of draconian policing, but because the US banned leaded gasoline 20 years earlier.
The reseachers are predicting declines in criminal rates in UK 20 years on from the final banning of leaded petrol.
Again, this is not something that's being widely published, not least because it doesn't fit with politicians wanting to claim their "war on crime" policies work.
I'm fairly unknowlegable in this area but from my understanding. Governments look at the profit for themselves in the here and now. In this moment it profits them to keep things going the way they are and they make decisions that will increase their profits within a couple of years ie expanding airports etc. 100 years from now doesn't matter because they won't be here. 10 years from now doesn't matter because someone else will be in charge then and have to take the flack fromtheir choices.
Ignorance is bliss. If they turn a blind eye and keep the general public ignorant the boat doesn't get rocked.
Sorry if that doesn't make sense or is wrong or offensive. I'm a newbie to all things eco. With time hopefully wisdom will come to me.
Just because I can't do everything I won't fail to do something.
was a good bit of the un thingge in the NZ Herald on saturday - nice to know someone is one the ball. oh an i down loaded the 500 pages now i jsut need a few thousand minutes to read em .. . .
Jeremy Daniel Meadows. (Jed).
Those who walk in truth and love grow in honour and strength
getting there wrote:Sorry if that doesn't make sense or is wrong or offensive. I'm a newbie to all things eco. With time hopefully wisdom will come to me.
Mr. QB in his biologist capacity has always said that humanity will not last long. Maybe he's right, the cesation of human life would certianly give bio-diversity a chance to recover.
But then I stop and think what the end of humanity means on a personal scale. Those who will be hurt first, most acutely and for the longest will be those living in marginal enviroments and the poor. In other words those who a. are least able to help themselves, and b. who are least responsible for the enviromental problems.
When I contemplate this I'm racked with guilt. I can't help but think, "My God, what have we done?", and we knew what we were doing when we did it! How can we disasociate ourselves from the suffering of people just like ourselves?
