This is true. Control of consumption is even more paramount, at least in the
next 5 decades. Tim Flannery in The Weather Makers pointed out that the
carbon footprint of a modern Chinese family, 2 adults and one child living
in a concrete apartment block with a plasma TV, air conditioner and car in
the basement is vastly higher than the traditional family with 3 or 4
generations under 1 roof and the pigs and chooks under the floor. He also
pointed out, re the original Kyoto protocol target of a 5% reduction in CO2
vs. 1990 levels, that if everyone in the world was emitting at 5% below the
per capita emissions of the United States in 1990, the total emissions would
be 12 times what they were in 1990.
At the moment, with industrialisation accelerating in China, India and even
Africa now, that seems to be where we're headed.
-----Original Message-----
From: Denise Goodfellow
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 3:31 AM
To: Graeme Stevens ; Tim Jones ; Andrew Hobbs
Cc: Birding Aus
Subject: The ocean is dead; a yachtsman's tale
Morning all
Population control is paramount to climate change. But so is control of
consumption. As people enter middle class they adopt an ever-increasing
desire for the trappings that signify their membership of this group. They
have fewer children but they consume more meat and dairy products, and they
buy more imported goods, cars etc. And millions more have adopted such a
life style over the past couple of decades.
People increasingly live in cities, and those cities are often constructed
for cars. Take Palmerston near Darwin - there are whole suburbs without a
supermarket. Public transport? It doesn't really work well with low
density housing which is basically what exists in most of that fast-growing
city. "5 km an hour" architecture? I've not met one politician or
developer, indeed anyone else, who's even heard of it.
And on food security: a 1994 book "Who Will Feed China?" was an eye-opener
for me. Where once our Asian neighbours such as Taiwan, Japan, South Korea,
and China, were self-sufficient in food, that is no longer the case, and a
major reason is that cities tend to be built on agricultural land.
Here in Australia the issue of food security often arises in the form of a
debate over agricultural land being sold to overseas interests. However,
again a much bigger issue should be the amount of agricultural land being
swallowed up by development. And the amount destroyed by overgrazing -
particularly problematic in times of drought - or by weeds such as Gamba
Grass.
Denise Lawungkurr Goodfellow
PO Box 71, Darwin River,
NT 0841
043 8650 835
On 26/10/13 9:10 PM, "Graeme Stevens" <> wrote:
I can but agree with Greg.
While we should all do our best wherever we can with conservation issues
etc,
I do not understand the lack of focus on human populations and
demographics
(global overpopulation that is).
Once it was an often discussed topical issue. Ref Paul Ehrlich's "The
Population Bomb" 1971. "limits to Growth" etc
What happened? Who killed the debate? Did it become too politically
incorrect,
or are these views now considered irrelevant and dated?
When a politician talks about food security, or the problems of increasing
"illegal immigration" around the world in response to conflicts (often
over
resources), please give them a quick lesson on root cause analysis and
chat
about what the world will look like when the projected additional 2
billion
mouths are added in the coming decades.
Graeme Stevens
From:
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:38:03 +1100
To:
CC:
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] The ocean is dead; a yachtsman's tale
Whatever. That's just semantics. The point is that we should all do what
we
can to make them uncomfortable.
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Oct 2013, at 11:34 am, "Andrew Hobbs" <>
wrote:
It is not a lot of good blaming the politicians. We (collectively) get
the
politicians we (collectively) deserve. To a large extent they simply
reflect
community values. Sure, some, probably even a majority, are rather
gullible
and/or are not very good at critical appraisal of what is actually
happening
in the world, the looming crises. Education and publicity might help but
I
doubt it. I suspect a much more important reason is that most choose to
ignore those problems. And I think they choose to ignore the situation
because to admit it would mean that they would then have to do something
about it, and that would threaten their comfortable way of life.
As one person recently observed, "most people would be lining up to
shovel
baby fur seals into the furnace if it meant they could maintain their
lifestyle just that little bit longer."
Andrew
On 22/10/2013 7:25 PM, Tim Jones wrote:
I tend to agree and whilst the skeptics annoy me and I am certain
man-made
climate change is a reality, it's just a symptom of the ever increasing
recklessness with which we are treating our earth. However the constant
debate about it has been exploited to obscure what we really need to
do,
which is to protect our environment and its diversity. I fear it's way
too
late, but anyone with any interest in the future of our planet should
be
doing what they feasibly can, whether it's voting green, donating to
conservation or simply carrying out voluntary work. Our politicians
must be
brought to account for the insanity of what they are allowing to happen
while others get on with whatever else can be achieved. We can't save
everything, but there must be a point at which some kind of equilibrium
is
reached, maybe even some improvement. And the point should be made, in
any
discussion, at any level.
Sent from my iPad
On 22 Oct 2013, at 9:31 pm, "Geoff Hutchinson"
<>
wrote:
I am sick and tired of hearing about Climate Change.
The climate has been changing forever and will continue to do so.
It is POLLUTION (the reduction of) that the Climate Change experts
should
be
calling out for.
Carbon is one of them, but plastic will kill us and all the creatures
first.
This is not a scientific observation it is a personal observation.
Sadly
Geoff Hutchinson
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
--
***********************************************************
Andrew Hobbs
***********************************************************
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
