hibs.net Messageboard

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 43 of 43

Thread: Global Warming

  1. #31
    @hibs.net private member Moulin Yarns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Spinning a Yarn
    Posts
    12,879
    These are fascinating, and frightening.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46384067
    #Persevered
    Scotland can be a beacon, within these islands and beyond, for a socially just and sustainable society. Whilst there are many priorities which will require independence, there is also much that can and must be done now by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #32
    Coaching Staff One Day Soon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In hope
    Age
    54
    Posts
    8,899
    Quote Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I was agreeing with Ozy, I haven't read what Carney said.

    It's just not fair for pious westerners to tell the rest of the world they can't have what we've enjoyed.

    There's absolutely nothing wrong with capitalism, it's the natural state of human affairs if nothing external intervenes where goods and services are exchanged.

    But there's quite a lot wrong with capitalism when governments collectively are unable or unwilling to agree effective regulation in order to moderate, alter or restrict how the capitalist system operates.

    I completely agree that non-Western nations should be able and have the right to pursue the best of what the advanced modern economies benefit from: good healthcare, a wide range of consumer products, safety and security, excellent education, good housing, effective transportation systems, stable and high quality food supplies. In fact there is more than enough resource available in the world for most if not all countries to have these things and in an environmentally stable way.

    There are three core drivers for change to fix all this: technological advance, market regulation and changes in human behaviour.

    The technological change is a matter of both government investment and capitalist advance. The sheer volume of innovation and change required globally means that this is an enormous growth opportunity for players in the capitalist system, whether they be makers of low emission vehicles, developers of effective scale carbon capture schemes, developers of alternative food chain development and supply or a thousand other tech/innovation possibilities. Governments need to help make markets in these things - for example as has been done in many places elsewhere with deposit return schemes to support the development of a recycle/reuse economy.

    Market regulation is simple to describe and set. Much, much harder to agree. If you can get agreements though on emissions etc the impact could be massive and quite quite quickly too.

    Human behavioural change is central in all this - from travel habits through to what and how we eat, consume, reuse etc. Only one thing impacts the capitalist market more than regulation and that's consumer behaviour. That's why so many serious environmentalist voices are now saying that we shouldn't just be waiting or hoping for government action - if every single one of us takes the actions we are capable of in our every day lives then our collective impact upon the global capitalist ecosystem would be enormous.

    You're right JMS, the planet will be fine. Humans not so much, unless we get our collective act together. My conclusion is that Western and advanced industrial countries will not take this as seriously as is needed until we take some heavy collateral damage, by which I mean something like serious food shortages or competition over water resources.

    If I were a betting man - which I am - my money would be on the majority of the solution to all this coming from two places - western innovation and Chinese state action. The first driven by a desire to capitalise on the economic opportunity and the second driven by both the need to preserve an internal political hegemony and the desire to continue to roll out external global economic influence.

  4. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by One Day Soon View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There's absolutely nothing wrong with capitalism, it's the natural state of human affairs if nothing external intervenes where goods and services are exchanged.

    But there's quite a lot wrong with capitalism when governments collectively are unable or unwilling to agree effective regulation in order to moderate, alter or restrict how the capitalist system operates.

    I completely agree that non-Western nations should be able and have the right to pursue the best of what the advanced modern economies benefit from: good healthcare, a wide range of consumer products, safety and security, excellent education, good housing, effective transportation systems, stable and high quality food supplies. In fact there is more than enough resource available in the world for most if not all countries to have these things and in an environmentally stable way.

    There are three core drivers for change to fix all this: technological advance, market regulation and changes in human behaviour.

    The technological change is a matter of both government investment and capitalist advance. The sheer volume of innovation and change required globally means that this is an enormous growth opportunity for players in the capitalist system, whether they be makers of low emission vehicles, developers of effective scale carbon capture schemes, developers of alternative food chain development and supply or a thousand other tech/innovation possibilities. Governments need to help make markets in these things - for example as has been done in many places elsewhere with deposit return schemes to support the development of a recycle/reuse economy.

    Market regulation is simple to describe and set. Much, much harder to agree. If you can get agreements though on emissions etc the impact could be massive and quite quite quickly too.

    Human behavioural change is central in all this - from travel habits through to what and how we eat, consume, reuse etc. Only one thing impacts the capitalist market more than regulation and that's consumer behaviour. That's why so many serious environmentalist voices are now saying that we shouldn't just be waiting or hoping for government action - if every single one of us takes the actions we are capable of in our every day lives then our collective impact upon the global capitalist ecosystem would be enormous.

    You're right JMS, the planet will be fine. Humans not so much, unless we get our collective act together. My conclusion is that Western and advanced industrial countries will not take this as seriously as is needed until we take some heavy collateral damage, by which I mean something like serious food shortages or competition over water resources.

    If I were a betting man - which I am - my money would be on the majority of the solution to all this coming from two places - western innovation and Chinese state action. The first driven by a desire to capitalise on the economic opportunity and the second driven by both the need to preserve an internal political hegemony and the desire to continue to roll out external global economic influence.
    Like.

    Although one quibble, capitalism/market economy has only been the natural state of human affairs since we outpopulated our ability to hunt/gather. In societies where that never happened, eg. Australian aborigines, it never developed.

  5. #34
    Testimonial Due AgentDaleCooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    not sure
    Age
    31
    Posts
    4,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozyhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A religion? Hardly. It just makes people richer and is the best system we have. There is nothing else comes close to providing the level of prosperity that free markets do.
    If you can show me a better system I’m willing to switch so it surely can’t be an article of faith for me.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Your belief in the free market seems to be an article of faith, because you contend that the free-er the market, the more prosperous people get and the greener the society (unless you either accept or can refute the following...)

    Scandinavian countries have very high tax rates, a large public sector, yet have some of the highest GDPs in Europe (as well as some of the lowest inequality ratings, which results in less crime...but that's another debate), whilst crucially lead the way in renewable energy.

    so, your contention that free markets = richer countries* (if you mean GDP per person) + greener society seems to be baloney.

    I would also contend that innovation is far more dependent on good education that it is on free markets.


    *That is unless you include Switzerland, Luxembourg and the Gulf countries, which you are welcome to, if you are happy to bite the bullet on their many short comings, and with the latter, also accept that they are about as green as Craig Levein.
    Last edited by AgentDaleCooper; Yesterday at 04:29 PM.

  6. #35
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    48
    Posts
    21,910
    Quote Originally Posted by One Day Soon View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There's absolutely nothing wrong with capitalism, it's the natural state of human affairs if nothing external intervenes where goods and services are exchanged.

    But there's quite a lot wrong with capitalism when governments collectively are unable or unwilling to agree effective regulation in order to moderate, alter or restrict how the capitalist system operates.

    I completely agree that non-Western nations should be able and have the right to pursue the best of what the advanced modern economies benefit from: good healthcare, a wide range of consumer products, safety and security, excellent education, good housing, effective transportation systems, stable and high quality food supplies. In fact there is more than enough resource available in the world for most if not all countries to have these things and in an environmentally stable way.

    There are three core drivers for change to fix all this: technological advance, market regulation and changes in human behaviour.

    The technological change is a matter of both government investment and capitalist advance. The sheer volume of innovation and change required globally means that this is an enormous growth opportunity for players in the capitalist system, whether they be makers of low emission vehicles, developers of effective scale carbon capture schemes, developers of alternative food chain development and supply or a thousand other tech/innovation possibilities. Governments need to help make markets in these things - for example as has been done in many places elsewhere with deposit return schemes to support the development of a recycle/reuse economy.

    Market regulation is simple to describe and set. Much, much harder to agree. If you can get agreements though on emissions etc the impact could be massive and quite quite quickly too.

    Human behavioural change is central in all this - from travel habits through to what and how we eat, consume, reuse etc. Only one thing impacts the capitalist market more than regulation and that's consumer behaviour. That's why so many serious environmentalist voices are now saying that we shouldn't just be waiting or hoping for government action - if every single one of us takes the actions we are capable of in our every day lives then our collective impact upon the global capitalist ecosystem would be enormous.

    You're right JMS, the planet will be fine. Humans not so much, unless we get our collective act together. My conclusion is that Western and advanced industrial countries will not take this as seriously as is needed until we take some heavy collateral damage, by which I mean something like serious food shortages or competition over water resources.

    If I were a betting man - which I am - my money would be on the majority of the solution to all this coming from two places - western innovation and Chinese state action. The first driven by a desire to capitalise on the economic opportunity and the second driven by both the need to preserve an internal political hegemony and the desire to continue to roll out external global economic influence.
    Theres a few things to be said about that, although I agree with the main thrust of the analysis.

    The eventual aim of living in an environmentally sustainable way is dependent on political factors. The two drivers you mention about technological advancement (tech developments are NOT an inevitable consequence of living under a capitalist system, its a result of human endeavour, otherwise the Russians wouldnt have been the first into space)and market regulation are wholly dependent on power structures agreeing to moderate excesses of human behaviour.

    The most obvious examples how power structures threaten us are in the Americas; Trump deliberately violating (or 'withdrawing from' in his words) the Kyoto protocols, and Bolsonaro's stated ambition to develop the hell out of the Amazon rainforest 'because its ours'. These right wing, populist, free market demagogues are threatening all of us, and your third driver, human behavioural change, will struggle to make much of a difference in the face of just these two examples of the power structures that make all of this so intractable. The heavy collateral damage is coming, id be amazed if it wasnt in the next ten years. Obviously we, as individual members of the human race, should all change our behaviour now, anyway, regardless of the absolute ********s running the show. So we clearly need to be politically engaged as well as behaviorally (?)engaged. Demand better from our leaders.

    Again, moving from the abstract into the real world, there is a product on the shelves of every garden centre in the country called Rose Clear. (blue bottle, avoid it) It works really well in keeping aphids off your flowering plants. Unfortunately, it contains neonicitinoids that kill bees which obviously threatens human existence. The EU voted to ban neonics last year. But the manufacturers are keeping it on the shelves in the UK because of Brexit. Again, politics.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/f...tinoids-agreed
    It is not technological advancement that is going to come up with a replacement for Rose Clear. It's going back to old methods of horticulture that worked perfectly well before we got so lazy.

    I'm also fascinated by this apparent confidence that 'the planet will be fine' even if the human race suffers. There is literally no evidence as to whether or not a planet that supports life can survive when an ecosystem is degraded by humans. Id imagine scientists can only guess, just like the rest of us. Sylar might have a view? On one level, its all semantics, human life on Earth is most definitely at risk.
    Last edited by hibsbollah; Yesterday at 06:21 PM.

  7. #36
    @hibs.net private member Ozyhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    15,708
    Quote Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Your belief in the free market seems to be an article of faith, because you contend that the free-er the market, the more prosperous people get and the greener the society (unless you either accept or can refute the following...)

    Scandinavian countries have very high tax rates, a large public sector, yet have some of the highest GDPs in Europe (as well as some of the lowest inequality ratings, which results in less crime...but that's another debate), whilst crucially lead the way in renewable energy.

    so, your contention that free markets = richer countries* (if you mean GDP per person) + greener society seems to be baloney.

    I would also contend that innovation is far more dependent on good education that it is on free markets.


    *That is unless you include Switzerland, Luxembourg and the Gulf countries, which you are welcome to, if you are happy to bite the bullet on their many short comings, and with the latter, also accept that they are about as green as Craig Levein.
    You can have free markets with higher tax rates. Scandinavian countries have very free markets.
    I made it clear I think govt has a massive role to play and can nudge the market to provide the changes we need.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #37
    @hibs.net private member Ozyhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    15,708
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Theres a few things to be said about that, although I agree with the main thrust of the analysis.

    The eventual aim of living in an environmentally sustainable way is dependent on political factors. The two drivers you mention about technological advancement (tech developments are NOT an inevitable consequence of living under a capitalist system, its a result of human endeavour, otherwise the Russians wouldnt have been the first into space)and market regulation are wholly dependent on power structures agreeing to moderate excesses of human behaviour.

    The most obvious examples how power structures threaten us are in the Americas; Trump deliberately violating (or 'withdrawing from' in his words) the Kyoto protocols, and Bolsonaro's stated ambition to develop the hell out of the Amazon rainforest 'because its ours'. These right wing, populist, free market demagogues are threatening all of us, and your third driver, human behavioural change, will struggle to make much of a difference in the face of just these two examples of the power structures that make all of this so intractable. The heavy collateral damage is coming, id be amazed if it wasnt in the next ten years. Obviously we, as individual members of the human race, should all change our behaviour now, anyway, regardless of the absolute ********s running the show. So we clearly need to be politically engaged as well as behaviorally (?)engaged. Demand better from our leaders.

    Again, moving from the abstract into the real world, there is a product on the shelves of every garden centre in the country called Rose Clear. (blue bottle, avoid it) It works really well in keeping aphids off your flowering plants. Unfortunately, it contains neonicitinoids that kill bees which obviously threatens human existence. The EU voted to ban neonics last year. But the manufacturers are keeping it on the shelves in the UK because of Brexit. Again, politics.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/f...tinoids-agreed
    It is not technological advancement that is going to come up with a replacement for Rose Clear. It's going back to old methods of horticulture that worked perfectly well before we got so lazy.

    I'm also fascinated by this apparent confidence that 'the planet will be fine' even if the human race suffers. There is literally no evidence as to whether or not a planet that supports life can survive when an ecosystem is degraded by humans. Id imagine scientists can only guess, just like the rest of us. Sylar might have a view? On one level, its all semantics, human life on Earth is most definitely at risk.
    Russia might have sent the first man into space but the have not invented very much since at all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #38
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    48
    Posts
    21,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozyhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Russia might have sent the first man into space but the have not invented very much since at all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    OK. Point taken. It was a very small part of what my argument and the smiley was there for a reason.


    Edit-Actually, maybe they dont invent much anymore because they embraced capitalism??
    Last edited by hibsbollah; Yesterday at 06:39 PM.

  10. #39
    @hibs.net private member Ozyhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    15,708
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    OK. Point taken. It was a very small part of what my argument and the smiley was there for a reason.


    Edit-Actually, maybe they dont invent much anymore because they embraced capitalism??
    Iím not sure what they have is capitalism. The levels of corruption mean that itís almost impossible to do business there.
    I agree with you though that govt has a big job to do.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #40
    Testimonial Due AgentDaleCooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    not sure
    Age
    31
    Posts
    4,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozyhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You can have free markets with higher tax rates. Scandinavian countries have very free markets.
    I made it clear I think govt has a massive role to play and can nudge the market to provide the changes we need.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    how are you defining free markets, exactly? i assumed market freedom was measured by amount of a) regulation and b) private ownership

  12. #41
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    48
    Posts
    21,910
    Quote Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    how are you defining free markets, exactly? i assumed market freedom was measured by amount of a) regulation and b) private ownership
    By most measures, you'd call the Scandinavian economies social democratic mixed economies. I'm not sure if its factually incorrect to call Sweden 'free market', but it's certainly not neo liberal in the sense that the UK or the US is.

    Where Finland and Sweden are definitely different from what we're used to is income equality. I worked in Finland for a bit and there wasn't a great deal between the wages of middle management in a global firm and the guy who came in to change the water dispenser in the same firm. Which I thought was brilliant as you'd probably imagine.
    Last edited by hibsbollah; Yesterday at 07:35 PM.

  13. #42
    Coaching Staff One Day Soon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In hope
    Age
    54
    Posts
    8,899
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    By most measures, you'd call the Scandinavian economies social democratic mixed economies. I'm not sure if its factually incorrect to call Sweden 'free market', but it's certainly not neo liberal in the sense that the UK or the US is.

    Where Finland and Sweden are definitely different from what we're used to is income equality. I worked in Finland for a bit and there wasn't a great deal between the wages of middle management in a global firm and the guy who came in to change the water dispenser in the same firm. Which I thought was brilliant as you'd probably imagine.

    I'm not sure it can be credibly argued that the UK has a neo-liberal economy. The NHS and EU regulations alone would argue against that. Perhaps a debate for another thread.

  14. #43
    @hibs.net private member Bristolhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chippenham/Bath
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,164
    Quote Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's not sustainable if they all run on petrol. It might be if they're electric.

    I do agree governments are going to have to get a lot more interventionist.
    Interventionist. Something that isnít the flavour of the day at the moment.

    J

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved