Good luck Greta

I feel much more relaxed about Greta Thunberg’s trip to the US, since I’ve heard on a news story that actually one of her parents will be on the boat. It is a 60 x 12 foot boat without a toilet and amenities we are just used to.

It can’t do any harm to keep the discussion about climate change warm by constantly reporting about that trip of Greta.

What also interests me is how much Greta may miss her luxury home comforts during the journey for the sake of fighting climate change.

Lets hope all goes well.

I also hope that it will be easy to follow the media reports.

Advertisements

Enlightenment

I love a book full of statistics. It saves me compiling them and luckily there are always plenty of published number crunches to relate to.

When I started reading Steven Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now, I started to feel, he was a little too simplistic and tries to make a case that the rich make the live of the poor easier and better.

I do however like the slant on Humanism in the under-title. And whilst I am now on the Environment chapter, I am starting to get interested.

Frightening though the samples Steven Pinker gives by quoting Paul Watson who wants to radically reduce humanity to fewer than one billion.

sand desert blue sky egypt

Photo by David McEachan on Pexels.com

I think that is a very dangerous approach. I belief that the Egyptian Pharaoh culture simply died because the Egyptians spent too many of their scarce resources  on building the pyramids. With the technology available at the time, most of the human labour available must have gone into shaping those stones and putting them into the triangular shapes that built the Pyramids. People didn’t have enough time to spend on planting, harvest and dealing with environmental emergencies or attacks from other forces. Nor did they have the time to develop better technogies.

If we reduce humanity to the bare existence level, we will suffer similar consequences by not being able to sustain technology, which was only able to develop because we have gotten so much spare resources laying around.

Our lifestyles now are becoming increasingly inflexible. We rely more and more on the same habits to do all things each day. We regulate every spare niche of our lives with increasingly complicated laws. This inflexibility in itself is a major hindrance on making real progress. We cannot possibly maintain all that technology with few people.

person holding save our planet sign

Photo by Markus Spiske temporausch.com on Pexels.com

We cannot possibly change our world by leaving it the way it is and try to reduce our carbon foot prints alone.

The fact that Amazon rainforest countries demand the right to develop their lands puts a big dampener on our enthusiams, which rely on the existence of the rainforest.

We need to come to an international agreement that we either re-settle all peoples who reside in current rain forest regions and settle them in other nations. Or another possibility is forcing all nations to have a certain amount of forest areas within each country.

The latter option will require a lot of loss of sovereignity of each nation on the planet. Whilst we cannot even cope with Europe at present, how are we going to enter world-wide agreements?

One major source of pollution is travel and air travel causes more air pollution than previously thought.

We need to radically change values and the calculation of wealth from purely being a plus in the bank acount to being a whollistic view on positive contribution to global wealth including the health of the planet.

Humanism is the best way to achieve this because we cannot continually kick each other’s backsides but believing that God loves us all whilst we destroy each other and the planet. For what, a better afterlife? The Egyptians beliefed in a great afterlife.

 

the rainforest

Is without question one of the most importent assets of our planet. It is concentrated on various geographical locations. Lets take Brazil here as an example.

green leafed trees under blue sky

The typical British countrydise, cleared of forest, ready for farming. Photo by Lisa Fotios on Pexels.com

Of course us developed nations we have already cleared a lot of our forests and developed our lands. We in Britain even talk about becoming self-sufficient farming-wise to justify us leaving the EU without a deal.

For that of course we need to farm the land and clear probably even more forest.

We really do love to rely on the rain forest. The untouched and virgin rain forest, that same rain forest that saves our planet.

But what about those nationas that are couched within the rainforest areas. Nations like Brazil. Do their citizens not have the right to farm, to develp the land, to get skills-based jobs that are based within their national borders.

scenic view of rainforest

Rainforst    Photo by Arnie Chou on Pexels.com

Whilst we here in Britain demand that we can become independent of others, we do expect nations within the rainforest regions to leave that forest and just not devleop, to depend on others, help others, so that we developed countries can stay developing ourselves.

What are the nationals within the rainforest countries supposed to be doing?

Nobody has thought about this and I think that just shows how stupid our privately educated politicians and business leaders are because all they can think of is themselves.

It is an international problem and it needs nations to work together. But of course our political leaders only think about Brexit and becoming indendent from Europe and use the resources of other nations to bolster our own wealth.

The rainforest? The rainforest is depended upon that it stays as it is. So what about putting that thinking cap on?

The hinges of Brexit

There are several dimensions to this

  • Political independence
  • Commercial autonomy
  • Environmental concerns

Historically there were during

  • the 1600 – 95% of war between European nations
  • the 1700 – 75% of war …..
  • the 1800 – 45 % of war
  • 2000 – 0% conflict so far

Considering that the UK government pledged to cut Greenhouse gas emmission to zero by 2050, it seems illogical to leave the EU now.

Leaving the EU and having trade deals with further away countries, would mean considerably more transport of goods, more travel.

The UK is a water logged country and relies on either planes or boats for travel. There is only one land (under-water, tunnel) form of transport that doesn’t rely on flying or boats and that is via the Euro tunnel.

With increasing weather instability, transport by container ships will be endangered. There will also be a reduction of flights because it is very unlikely that the air travel industry will come up with a distinct change in airplane design that is more environmentally friendly.

Yet Britain relies for a large part on air travel. There are now calls to stop inland air travel but the train fares are too expensive to make that affordable.

Whilst I do not suggest that we should have to put up with any political system in Europe, just to get our trade, we need to seriously consider the implication of a break from Europe from the points of environmental change.

London_waterlevels

Flooding predictions for London for around 2080

What voters deserve is a clear planning procedure to include the worsening weather conditions, the increased demands on immigration because unstable political systems in Asian and African countries as well as increased flooding of large areas will decrease landmass available for people in those countries and they all will attempt to emigrate to saver regions.

Whilst our own coastlines suffer from erosion and raising sea levels will eventually encroach on our land.

A strong European council will be an assurance that political systems in European countries will not break down and revert to undemocratic methods.

Leaving Europe now without a deal makes us very vulnerable as we will be more dependant on trade deals with distant nations, when the transport of goods may be disturbed by worsening weather.

Being an influencer in Europe and remain as such will do us more favour than just leaving without a deal.

Whilst large swathes of English land owners want to break off from Europe because they have got the land to support themselves, the rest of us including London, Wales and Scotland feel very uneasy.

Of course theoretically the UK could manage on its own but the right-wing nationalists have a strong history of violent racism and that is what makes it an impossible thought to even embrace. The Jo Cox murder proved what right-wing terrorists are capable of.

I would say that the threat of war from an unstable future Europe together with worsening weather conditions would definitely threaten the future of our civilisation. Our armies would be severely hampered by the weather and our domestic situation would become severely unstable too. Further away allies may not be able to reach. Even D-Day had to be delayed because of bad weather and weather is going to be much worse. So we have to be very sensible and build alliances whilst it is possible to do so and prevent a shift to the right and into facism.

For these reasons I sincerly hope that a new Conservative Prime minister will be stopped from suspending parliament to push through a no deal Brexit.

 

A new twist to earth warming

The sun will get hotter, it will burn earth and water from earth will evaporate quicker to build a mirror for even higher rays from the sun.

That brings a new twist to earth warming, which has nothing to do with human activity or is it that the two work hand in hand, like a natural instinctive behaviour of humans that is programmed within their DNA?

This science article is frightening reading and should not be ignored.

Freedom of Expression

The latest scandals about the Brexit propaganda has upset very many residents in Britain and abroad alike. The Freedom of Expression has assisted those who produced white and even whiter lies to mislead the public.

Voters are told to expect bent truths and put up with it. Of course it’s the comprehensive Freedom of Expression, which does NOT require concrete proof of statements made, that enables the political lying to go on and on and on.

I think that each and every statement about political promises, economic outlooks, should contain a minimum of analysis that explain why that argument has been made.

Say you promise that nuclear energy helps us to produce cheaper electricity, explain how this is beneficial and how Hinckley Point, unsuitably placed right near the coast is a decade long investment, that may be swallowed up by floods due to our ever increasing earth warming.

Political planning should always be required to include several outlooks:

  • economic
  • social
  • political
  • environmental

But thanks to the fact that our politicians remain in office just for a short while, we have to put up with short promises.

Look at David Cameron resigning, his premiership and his MP position once his work was done. We have to live with his decisions but he can just move on and earn more money. It’s like politicians are just in the job nowadays to press a point, then resign and “Nach mir die Sintflut”.

The government however is very concerned when the Freedom tends to preach hate against our system and Prevention of Terrorism Acts produce articles to help the state lock up those who wish to eradicate our political system altogether.  That is pointed mainly against those who wish to maim and kill.

Looking back at my own litigation, I thought their publications where aimed to whip up frantic extremism. Yet the government now only prevents open calls for murder and mass fraternities.

Yet the law is slowly changing, looking at Women’s rights, cat-calling gets criminalised and the political and hateful BANTER I had to put up with can now be prosecuted when it comes to sexual harassment.

Earth warming in 2013

The latest round of public Earth Warming consultation through the IPCC Climate conference, showed that the results are widely published here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

The findings are nothing new and do not change a lot from the Sunday newspapers revelations already published in my blog a few years back.

Then the Chinese were shown as a prime example of bad policies. In fact the world uses China to get cheap goods and little was thought either in China or the world about the impact this has on the worldwide environment.

Until now the Chinese delegate spoke of the bad impact it has when the Chinese also have 5 cars per family as the Americans do.

It is just a sign of people’s inability to practise what they preach. Government still hails new car manufacturing jobs to keep the workers happy, they forget that the production of steel and more and more cars and burning of fossil fuels is the cause for our demise.

The government wants to extract more oil, more gas. The IPCC suggests a price on carbon, that means live will become unaffordable for the poor.

Once land becomes more scarce the poor are going to be perched into camps, and he rich will take all good land.

Women do benefit from employment and if jobs were to go from manufacturing then women would feel the brunt. Government should change living habits to more environmentally friendly instead of investing in fossil fuel based industries.

 

Universal credit will slowly eradicate humanity

Universal credit, if applied around the globe would result in the eradication of the human race as it will severely affect people’s ability to have children. But whilst I previously argued that over-population is one important factor in earth warming, it is only so because we burn fossil fuels.

There is no point in shutting down humanity to stop global warming at all. We need to ensure that people can have children, even if there are no jobs. What this government is doing is a crime on humanity as it blames locals for the fact that no jobs are available and I think this government is paid probably by foreign forces to slow the multiplication of westernised individuals.

A lot of jobs have been out-sourced to eastern countries and they are the only people to benefit from economic growth.

I think this government should be tried for treason.

A very good and sensible tax

Why didn’t David Cameron think of this. He loves taxing people, he should take a good example from Northern Ireland and copy the plastic bag tax from them. We desperately need to reduce the amount of plastics we use with a levy on such goods. I don’t want tax on butter, or such sensible products, I want a reduction and tax on plastic products instead please.

Plastics do immense damage to our environment. Recently a lot of plastic gel balls rained down from the sky into the garden of a person who scooped them up. Plastic fibres also do a lot of environmental damage through washing, when they get into the ground water and then into the food chain.

Of course the damage that plastic bags do to the sea is well known by now.

So in conclusion governments should do much more to stop plastic pollution instead of bickering about a tax on butter.

UK in breach of EU pollution rules since 2005

It of course does put the accusation of the Greens, during the last mayoral elections, in which they accused Boris of not caring for families, into a realistic context. Reading that the UK does not care about pollution levels, which causes a big health issue, hurts. I quote from the article “There are no air quality actions for Defra or the Department for Transport in their departmental business plans,”  and few government departments “appear to understand the importance of the issue”.

What is happening is that a few cycle lanes have been built, which are dangerous and already cost lives because recently 2 cyclists got killed within a week on those so-called safe cycling lanes in Bow.

The whole traffic infra-structure is not changing at all. The roads are made for cars and the congestion is still the same. I would not want to walk or jog near a busy road in London, which is chock-a-block with cars and lorries at most hours of the day.

The rule that parents should walk their kids to school is not enforced at all. Parents are allowed to park illegally outside of schools to drop off their children. Just in my locality cars are parked illegally every time there is a big event in York Hall. Traffic wardens could make a fortune for the borough if they towed away and ticketed all the illegally parked cars and so discourage them from coming on roads to the venue, but they don’t because if they come by car they come to York Hall.

There is no effort to effectively reduce car traffic in London at all.

It would be much better if traffic would change by reducing the amount of road space for cars and increasing cycle lanes to make them wider, therefore squeezing out car traffic because there is no proper indication that environmentally friendly cars are to be sold en mass.

Of course changing the road traffic structure would cost major investment and that is money the government doesn’t want to spend as cycling traffic doesn’t make much money and politicians do want their wages from tax payers. Politicians are the most selfish breed of employee I know.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,738 hits