A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

Climate change v environment

Keith Parkins | 28.08.2009 15:33 | Climate Chaos | Ecology

Last night on BBC Radio 4, a programme implied that focus on climate change was to the detriment of other environmental issues.

Last night on BBC Radio 4 I listened to a really dumb programme, are we neglecting the environment due to our focus on climate change as though the two are somehow mutually exclusive!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00m721x

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8223611.stm

Yes, if we focus on our own little backyard and neglect the bigger issues, we forget that those bigger issues will wipe out our backyard, especially if it is a big bulldozer heading our way.

Many of the streets in London fail to meet clean air standards, as a result, 10-12,000 people are dying each year. But this is not an either or. Free up the streets by investing in better public transport, we then also reduce our energy use and our green house gases. And we get better air quality, less NOx, less particulates.

Safeguard the environment and we also safeguard the planet as we safeguard Gain control mechanisms.

Cut down the rainforests and we lose a major Gaian control mechanism, as well as a catastrophic loss of biodiversity. The two are not mutually exclusive.

We have to though recognise the activity of Man. When man changed from a hunter-gatherer to a pastoralist he only fouled up his own backyard, now he fouls up the planet. He has become not only a major Gaian control mechanism in his own right, but is also throwing the spanner in the works of other Gaian control mechanisms.

An example was given of toxins and their release into the environment, as though separate from other mechanisms. Toxins destroy coral reefs, mangrove swarms, knock on impact on fish breading grounds etc.

We can close the loops, remove toxins from the cycle, eliminate waste. The concept of waste does not exist in the natural world. If we close the loops, we have no waste, no resource extraction, minimise our energy use.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/09/408329.html

All is interconnected.

The Chinese, through one family policy, reduced the Chinese population by 450 million. Chinese emission of CO2 per capita is 4.5 tonnes. That is a lot less carbon into the atmosphere. Much of Chinese CO2 carbon emission is offshore production for the affluent West.

We see much hot air, but no action. G8 agreed targets for 2050, but none for 2030.

UK has mandatory greenhouse gas reduction of 80% by 2050, but there is no evidence of how this is to be achieved either by sector or region. It is business as usual.

Farnborough Airport has applied for a doubling of flights! It is an exclusive business airport. Its average occupancy is 2.5 passengers per flight!

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/07/435417.html?c=on

Meanwhile, on the Isle of Wight, the UK's only wind turbine factory has closed down for lack of orders. No sign of a government bail out as we saw for the banks, as we saw for the car industry.

http://www.savevestas.wordpress.com/

http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news6854.php

http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news6861.php

Carbon trading is offered as a quick fix solution, but all it has done is create a market for City speculators.

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/

As I write, the Climate Camp is in residence at Blackheath Common ...

http://www.climatecamp.org.uk

http://twitter.com/climatecamp

http://www.climatecamp.tv

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8223598.stm

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/08/436913.html

... described as 'a prat's utopia' by a juvenile scribbler at the Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100007746/climate-camp-a-prat%E2%80%99s-utopia/

Keith Parkins

Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

No species left behind

28.08.2009 16:31

It might have been a dumb programme but there is a serious underlying issue for how governments ( not activists ) misprioritise climate change over other environmental issues. Because climate change is longer reaching than the term of a government the politicians are happy to agree long term targets while ignoring the short term protection of species.

For instance, you will have a good idea of how palm oil bio-fuel is bad for the planet and bad for the local flora and fauna such as OrangUtans, but an investment trader looks at it differently since they couldn't care less about biodiversity. If you produce sustainable Palm Oil you get green certificates that unsustainable Palm Oil producers will buy from you to greenwash themselves. So if you as an individual choose to buy sustainable Palm Oil you simply can't differentiate. The real solution would to immediately ban all unsustainable palm oil, but that is a big political step that on the surface has no effect on climate change.

Biologist E.O.Wilson says "that if you save the living environment, you will automatically save the physical environment. But if you only try to save the physical environment, you will lose them both".

That's a biologists point of view but politicians do ignore or pay lipservice to many important environmental issues such as protection of cetacaens from whaling and naval sonar. Like I said, this is applicable to politicians, most activists realise it would be daft for Climate Change protestors to scuttle the Sea Shepherd to stop it using diesel.

Danny
Homepage: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.600-60second-interview-e-o-wilson.html

sounds like the program made some good points

29.08.2009 10:35

I didn't hear the program but from the BBC article it sounds like it made some good points:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8223611.stm

This Indymedia article is attacking a straw man - it doesn't say that environmentalists ignore other issues at the expense of climate change, it says that politicians do:

"...climate change is seductive to politicians because it is a long-term issue - so decisive action is always posited for some time in the future, at a time that can always be made yet more distant - and someone else can always be blamed."

so correspondingly political lobby groups focus on this as well:

"I would obviously wish that our most senior politicians were able to hold two environmental thoughts at the same time - but there is a political reality; climate change is sexy, so we get most traction there."

The BBC article is basically saying that politicians are self-serving, political lobbying is futile unless you use bribery (sorry, "investment"), and the political system is broken, which I suspect is a view most people here share.

anon

labour

29.08.2009 20:20

"I would obviously wish that our most senior politicians were able to hold two environmental thoughts at the same time - but there is a political reality; climate change is sexy, so we get most traction there."

The BBC article is basically saying that politicians are self-serving, political lobbying is futile unless you use bribery (sorry, "investment"), and the political system is broken, which I suspect is a view most people here share.

Yes, i'd agree with that. The crux of it is the government sitting on their hands. But you cannot blame companies, investors or anyone else wholeheartedly. They are all operating "with the law" and it is virtual impossible to be extra green if all your competitors are achieving cheaper costs by not being if your survival depends on it.

It is up to the government to draw the lines in the sand that every company is to follow. Unfortunately, the government (labour party) does everything for the good of the labour party. The county comes second. So policies to help the labour party stay in power are better than policies that lose voters and power. Basically, the whole system is quite good in principal but has some obvious flaws that basically stem around the preservation of the labour party's power.

Max

reply to Max: it's the companies that tell the govt what to do

30.08.2009 15:59

Max, I'm glad we agree that the government is corrupt and self-serving, but I think your libertarian free-market ideals are a little naive.

Don't you see that the reason the government doesn't act isn't just because they think it will be bad for the Party in some abstract sense? - it's because they rely on the support of big business and the media for their political survival.

So the companies that want to pollute just pay off the politicians, and they already control the media because they rely on their advertising money. So it's not surprise the government doesn't pass laws stopping pollution. It's one big circle jerk and both govt and business are to blame. Business pays off government and government give business the laws they want for their short-term profit margins.